10 Professional Sports photographers who use mirrorless

<p>Here is an article I thought some of you may find interesting. Turns out there <em>are</em> some pro sports photogs using mirrorless in all manner of action photography. I found this to be a truly enjoyable and interesting read. Just goes to show mirrorless isn't quite as limited in this genre as I thought. Hope you enjoy.</p>

<p>http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2015/04/28/10-photographers-who-use-mirrorless-for-sports-photography/</p>

<p>Heaven forbid! Of course I think this is natural - making use of progress in technology by... using it.</p>

<p>I think that the swivelling LCD is the most useful thing about mirrorless cameras. Of course DSLRs have them now, and some would say it's the 'best of both worlds'. But that is like putting lipstick on a pig, IMO.</p>

<p>I don't think any of those photographers use manual focus lenses, which is surprising in one way. That's one of the key elements of the mirrorless systems: the ability to use manual focus lenses like they've never been used before!</p>

<p>The following is a small rant, so if you don't like it, don't say I didn't warn you:</p>

<p>I must say, I love this quote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It blows my mind that I’m able to get the job done with $2,000 worth of Sony gear vs. $10,000 in Nikon gear. That’s craziness.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Don't you hear that a lot from non-Leica shooters (ones with a grudge) who think that you can do anything with a Nikon that you can with a Leica, and at lower cost? So if a Nikon is cheaper than a Leica, it's the smart buy. But when the Nikon is more expensive than a Sony, it's because it's a 'serious' camera. Which is it?<br>

<br>

Note that I don't mind what people buy (because it's healthy to have variety in the marketplace), but sometimes you want to throw back silly remarks made by people who think that it doesn't matter what camera you use, as long as it's their favourite brand. DSLRs have no more a mandate for sports than rangefinders do for journalism.<br>

<br>

If the DSLR can replace the RF for press use, the mirrorless system can replace the DSLR for sports. Or is that not allowed? Do we need to wait for someone's permission to replace our DSLRs?</p>

<p>Karim, I know how you feel. You get a lot of push back on forums about how mirrorless will never be able to take the place of a DSLR, especially in the professional arena. You get a lot of the <em>'mirrorless are consumer cameras'</em> type of gruff, which is just silly. And not at all true. There are plenty of pro photographers all over the world using mirrorless cameras to generate work for clients.</p>

<p>I don't think it is so much a question of getting someone's permission to replace your DSLR, although it can feel that way on the forums sometimes. Rather, it is each photographer choosing for themselves if a mirrorless camera will serve their needs better and making the switch when the time is right for them. If at all. There are plenty of photographers, pro and enthusiast, who will go to their grave using DSLR's, or rangefinders, or whatever. It really doesn't matter which camera is in your hand, as long as great images are coming out of it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've said for years that we will eventually end up with the big DSLR companies ditching the mirrors from their cameras and replacing the optical finders with EVFs. Nothing else will change. The big Canons and Nikons will look and handle the same as a DSLR but will effectively become mirrorless (much like the Sony SLT cameras). Why? DSLRs are the tools of most pros because of the way they handle. The are ergonomic, fit perfectly in the hand, can take a lot of rough and tumble and have massive ranges of lenses and accessories. I don't think Canon and Nikon will ditch their lens mounts because the only advantage of a new mount would be to decrease the size of the camera body. And there's no point making DSLR style cameras smaller because then you lose the handling characteristics. </p>

<p>So, where's the companion article...<br /><br />"1,000 pro sports shooters who shoot DSLR".<br /><br />jus' funnin' y'all...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DSLRs are the tools of most pros because of the way they handle. The are ergonomic, fit perfectly in the hand, can take a lot of rough and tumble and have massive ranges of lenses and accessories.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Jamie I hope you can admit that there is nothing in your second sentence there that, as Karim said, allows DSLR's to have a mandate in those areas. Ergonomics are completely subjective to the user, and the web if full of people admitting that mirrorless is better ergonomically for them. As for rough and tumble, well no mirrorless manufacturer has yet released a model that is built to the spec of say a Canon 1DX. But there is no reason that they cant, and eventually wont. Mirrorless models can be every bit as rugged as DSLR's. Probably more so since drops and hits to the camera wont now mess up any critical mirror alignment. But Samsung NX cameras are built to a high degree of ruggedness, as are some mirco 4/3's and the X-T1. Even the new Leica SL, bless its heart, looks to be built like a tank. With a single hewn block of aluminum and the weather sealing it supposedly has you can probably hammer nails in a hurricane with that thing.</p>

<p>Finally, as for accessories and lenses, that is just a matter of time. These companies supporting these new mirrorless cameras are going up against Canon and Nikon who have had almost 30 years to create lenses and accessories. There is no way they can compete with that overnight. But as their product line matures, and as the third party market jumps in, that will change relatively quickly. Its already happening.</p>

<p>The reason pros use DSLR's is not (in all cases) the way they handle. It is because they were the peak technology camera for a long time. With nothing to challenge the capabilities of the DSLR (which was the status quo for a long time) pros would naturally gravitate toward the apex predator.</p>

<p>I do think you are onto something about DSLR's loosing the mirror and simply staying the way they are. I have often seen that as a first step for Canon and Nikon to test the waters and see how people react to the mirrorless DSLR. The problem is that the AF in those cameras will have to match or exceed the AF capabilities of the cameras they are replacing. And unfortunately it doesn't seem as if Canikon are doing anywhere near the amount of research into this as they should. Sony on the other hand is getting better with each new camera concerning on sensor focusing. I actually see Sony releasing a line of mirrorless Alpha A mount mirrorless cameras before the other big two go that route.</p>

<p>This might actually be a smart thing for Sony to do to merge their two camera lines together. A pro photographer could take his rugged, DSLR style mirrorless A99 mk II out into the wild for extreme assignments in bad weather and terrain. Then when back in the studio, or on less rugged assignments, use all his same A mount glass on the A7RII with a simple adapter.</p>

<p>Whatever happens, the next few years will surely be interesting. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, where's the companion article...<br /><br />"1,000 pro sports shooters who shoot DSLR".<br /><br />jus' funnin' y'all...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lol, you're right. The status quo has<em> never</em> been changed from either revolution or evolution. Both of which are occurring now. :)</p>

<p>I would expect a pro sports photographer to use the best tool for the job. That's not to say that mirrorless can't get some good images, but it is to say that all else being equal DSLRs get a higher percentage of usable shots. So, what does that say about pros that use less than optimum gear? If your income depended on it, which would you choose?</p>

<p>You appear to be on a crusade to show the greater glory of mirrorless vs DSLRs in spite of the fact that they are usually bested by DSLRs when shooting sports. Before you go off the deep end on me, I'm not a lover of the size and weight of DSLRs, and I can appreciate the smaller size and lighter weight of the mirrorless alternative, for some other types of shooting. But, you can't deny the capabilities of DSLRs WRT sports shooting. At some point in the future mirrorless might surpass DSLRs for sports shooting, but that point has not been reached yet, a fact that you seem to avoid in your posts. To claim otherwise is misleading<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Only two of them say they switched to mirrorless and dropped dSLRs. That's two out of how many working sports photographers?<br>

<br />And plenty of professional photographers - sports or anything else - supplement dSLRs with a phone. So you could put together a similar article about that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You appear to be on a crusade to show the greater glory of mirrorless vs DSLRs in spite of the fact that they are usually bested by DSLRs when shooting sports. Before you go off the deep end on me, I'm not a lover of the size and weight of DSLRs, and I can appreciate the smaller size and lighter weight of the mirrorless alternative, for some other types of shooting. But, you can't deny the capabilities of DSLRs WRT sports shooting. At some point in the future mirrorless might surpass DSLRs for sports shooting, but that point has not been reached yet, a fact that you seem to avoid in your posts. To claim otherwise is misleading</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I promise you Carl, I am not on a crusade to show anything. I merely enjoy photography and the current gear choices we all have to choose from. Especially the new mirrorless offerings as they have opened up a lot of potential for me. This is after all a public forum used to discuss and exchange ideas. Recently the overall usage of the Mirrorless forum has been a little low, if you look at the usual number of posts made between the Mirrorless Monday offerings. I try to stay up to date on current photography happenings, esp in regards to emerging mirrorless trends, and I thought that Pnet would be a great place to share a lot of this news. Especially if it will help readership to this forum overall, and to our subforum.</p>

<p>I could see your claim of me being on a crusade if I was inundating the DSLR forums with such mirrorless news in an attempt to stir up trouble. But I am merely posting information in the correct forum in hopes it will be seen by those interested in the latest mirrorless info. I happen to like pnet very much and if I can help generate productive discussion here then good job me.</p>

<p>If you have followed any of my posting over the last week are so I have made numerous mention that Sports is an area where mirrorless has yet to fully challenge the DSLR. I do believe that one day this will come to pass because as I have said the technological potential of mirrorless cameras is still mostly untapped. So no, I am not avoiding anything.</p>

<p>I personally don't care what anybody shoots. I have discovered what works for me, and I hope everyone finds the tool that works best for them. But I would like to do my part in helping to educate anyone who takes the time to read these forums because they are interested in mirrorless cameras. I find mirrorless to be incredibly exciting and yes, I believe one day it will supplant DSLR's for the majority of photographers. But that day isn't here yet, and probably wont be for a very long time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Only two of them say they switched to mirrorless and dropped dSLRs. That's two out of how many working sports photographers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no idea Jeff, and I hope that isn't a serious inquiry. Only two from the scope of the article, but for the rest of the pro sports shooter community? How can we know? And anyway the point of the article wasn't how many photogs have ditched DSLR's to use mirrorless exclusively. It was only showing some photographers who are currently using mirrorless to shoot sports. Why do you feel the need to make it one or the other?</p>

<p>It is interesting though that twice now I have had this response about this type of article. When posting information about a group of photogs who have made some type of switch or trying something new the negative response is something like "Yeah, you only dropped 10 names....lol, that's nothing" as if I am somehow responsible for finding every single photographer out there who has made a change and if I don't my point is somehow made invalid.</p>

<p>The point is that changes are being made, and being made by people whose livelihood depends on their gear. I find this very interesting and worthy of discussion.</p>

<p>None of those "professional" sports photographers appear to be from anywhere near the top end of the industry. And the fact that the site is called www.mirrorlessons.com should maybe be a clue that they are not neutral on the subject.<br>

That said, I think sports is the last place where DSLRs rule. A photog friend of mine here in Hong Kong runs a <a href="http://www.f8photography.com.hk/">very busy studio</a> with a wide range of activities. He has gone to the Sony A7R2 for almost all of their business, from high-end corporate videos, travel and street photography workshops around Asia, studio and location portraiture. (He just got rid of his Mamiya 645 AFD, Canon 5DMK3s, all Leicas and a very expensive video camera I can't remember the name of.) He has held onto a couple of Canon DX1s for sports, mostly to shoot HK Sevens and their work for Ducati around Asia. Mirrorless can't compete with the DX1. Yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think sports is the last place where DSLRs rule. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

They do for concert photography also, for pretty much the same reasons as sports photography. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>None of those "professional" sports photographers appear to be from anywhere near the top end of the industry.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>How does it matter in the slightest? They are pro photographers in their field. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And the fact that the site is called www.mirrorlessons.com should maybe be a clue that they are not neutral on the subject.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Again, how does that matter in the slightest? It is site about mirrorless cameras reporting on photographers using mirrorless cameras. What are they supposed to report on Ian? The price of portraits in China? If that were the case I would expect an interesting article from you on the site. :)</p>

<p>This is very interesting but this is the type of response I am talking about once again. Suddenly an innocuous article about pro photogs using mirrorless cameras has its validity questioned because now the photogs in question aren't 'at the top of their field'. And once again we have someone bringing up DSLR superiority in almost a defensive way.</p>

<p>But I can agree with one thing Ian. No mirrorless camera is yet anywhere near the 1DX in capabilities. But if find it interesting that to point out shortcomings of mirrorless, which has only been out a few short years, you need to bring up the absolute pinnacle of DSLR technology that Canon has been working on and perfecting for almost 30 years. The fact that they are mentioned in the same breath is a nod to the rapid rise of mirrorless.</p>

<p>On a side note, You have some beautiful images on your site. As does your friend at f8.</p>

<p>Sheesh, David, YOU started this thread with half truths, and now you think that you can say anything you like because you posted in the mirrorless section, and nobody can dispute it? Are you serious? Innocuous? In your dreams, maybe. </p>

<p>Facts are facts, what you hope for has not yet become a reality. Go make your living shooting sports with a mirrorless camera, and then come back with facts, not supposition. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sheesh, David, YOU started this thread with half truths...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Lol Carl, sure. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>None of those "professional" sports photographers appear to be from anywhere near the top end of the industry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lol. yeah, but a few of them are sponsored by mirrorless camera companies.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the fact that the site is called www.mirrorlessons.com should maybe be a clue that they are not neutral on the subject</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i love the quote about the A6000 being a ferrari at ford prices ("When you combine the world’s most advanced AF system with an 11 fps motor drive, you get an unparalleled value. You buy a Ford and get Ferrari performance"). did that guy really say that? or is that marketing copy? if only that were true. the only ford on a ferrari level is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GT40">this </a>one, im afraid. sure, the A6000 is a pretty decent body that checks the AF and fps boxes, but is let down somewhat by the current lens selection, which isnt mentioned.</p>

<p>Also, the Fuji 55-200 is not well-regarded by Fuji shooters for its AF speed. and its way too slow for nighttime shots. i suppose one could shoot dance with an XT1 up to about 5000 ISO, but really only along a linear axis, since the AF tracking isnt going to do well with diagonal subject movement across the frame. similarly, an E-M1 will shave weight with long lenses for surf shots from the shore, but a long lens on full frame will give you much better subject isolation from shallow DoF. it's also worth noting the <a href="http://clarklittlephotography.com/">best surf photographer in the world </a>uses a D200 and a 10.5/2.8 fisheye and gets inside the wave. i also love how the GH4 guy didnt actually swap out his DSLR stuff, and in fact has a bunch of it around his neck. </p>

<p>Look, no one ever said mirrorless cameras couldnt work for some things, or that they couldnt complement DSLR kits in meaningful ways. but there's an almost laughable lack of critical objectivity in that article. what was the keeper rate with the fuji 55-200? we dont know. any downsides to using an A7 series body for sports? we wouldnt know from reading this. but here's what <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/shooting-sports.html">thom hogan said</a> after field-testing an A7rII in a soccer match: <em>"</em><em>the problem with the Sony was timing. That EVF lag, coupled with the 5 fps frame rate, meant that I tended to start bursts of shots a little late, and the frame rate wasn’t fast enough to always catch the real peak action."</em> ask yourself, is this article directed at pros? or soccer/football dads, who are being led to believe investing $2100 on an A6000 and 70-200/4 is going to make up for the lack of nighttime illumination on their crummy local football fields. and, let's see here, an A6000 at ISO 6400 is about the same as a full frame camera at 3200. except full-frame has 70-200/2.8 zooms (except for Sony, that is). so instead of 2.8 at ISO 1600, we have to push a whole 2 stops of ISO on an APS-C sensor to maintain the same shutter speed. we also have far worse subject isolation with an f/4 zoom, which may explain why the basketball shot is focused on the ball.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They do for concert photography also, for pretty much the same reasons as sports photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i've seen exactly one A7 body in a photo pit, and i think they were shooting video. As much as the A7SII's low-light ability would be great for concert shots, you still need faster lenses than f/4 and sometimes 2.8. That's because High ISO can overexpose with bright, uneven stage lighting, which tends to be where you'd ideally want to focus -- on the performer's face. So f/4 at 25,600 could have some pretty cartoonish results, compared to f/2 at 6400. even if you splurged on the Sony/Zeiss primes, you're spending the same or even more as DSLR full-frame equivalents, often for slower lenses in the same focal lengths. The Fuji system at least has a full range of fast 1.4 and even 1.2 primes, but APS-C is inherently worse at high ISO than full frame, and m4/3 is even worse.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How does it matter in the slightest? They are pro photographers in their field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it matters because the article implies more widespread adoption of mirrorless among sports photogs than the reality actually is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Again, how does that matter in the slightest? It is site about mirrorless cameras reporting on photographers using mirrorless cameras. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, because this is not an objective, unbiased source offering a critical perspective -- it's basically propaganda.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Suddenly an innocuous article about pro photogs using mirrorless cameras has its validity questioned.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i would say what's really being questioned here isn't just validity, but integrity. the purpose of the article isnt to accurately address some of the challenges one would need to overcome with mirrorless cameras to use them effectively for sports, but to make ameteur photographers think that "pro" shots are just a mirrorless purchase away. and if we're talking about defensiveness, i think one has to be somewhat delusional to downplay an article which can be said to be genuinely misleading as "innocuous."</p>

<p>I'm a happy switcher from Nikon DX to µ43.<br /><br />If I shot sports and concerts would I switch? Absolutely no way. If I were shooting events for a living? Most likely I would not switch.<br /><br />Is it a totally boss format for an amateur like myself? Yup. I'm sure it works for some pros, too, but if I were Pro... naaaah...</p>

<p>The only reason I can't ever see myself switching to m43 is the depth of field issue. That's never going to go away. I adore the m43 system but I shoot wide open regularly with a 35mm f1.4 lens on full frame and m43 just cannot replicate that. It's two systems for me.</p>

<p>Well said, Eric! Some people see no difference if they use a butter knife when a screwdriver is called for. </p>

<p><em>"What are they supposed to report on Ian? The price of portraits in China? If that were the case I would expect an interesting article from you on the site. :)" etc etc</em><br>

David, please talk about things you know about. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>i've seen exactly one A7 body in a photo pit, and i think they were shooting video. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I've seen one mirrorless used by someone in the pit other than a friend/fan who somehow got access. I knew him and watched his site and FB page and he never posted a single photo from the show. It was difficult conditions, the band (Jesus & Mary Chain) had strobes from behind and an unbelievable amount of smoke/fog on the stage. However, I got some useable shots and I saw others, although nobody got a lot.</p>

<p>I am actually trying to move to mirrorless, and expect to be mostly there by next year. I am taking an XT1 out on some big jobs and the files are great. Great little camera to work with, the viewfinder is incredible, and the high ISO is amazing. But a lot of my work is <a href="https://www.facebook.com/IanTaylorPhotography/photos/a.1025975830797738.1073741882.171846589544004/1025975867464401/?type=3&theater">shooting kids on the move</a>, and I am not going to get rid of my 70-200 2.8 IS for a couple/few years. If I only took photos of bugs as the OP does, I'd ditch all the Canon stuff in an instant.<br>

I was out last week with a Reuters photog who shoots the Olympics and Aussie Open and mirrorless isn't even on his radar. Zero.</p>

<p>So far, in barely three pages of this thread, I have been accused of being on a crusade, the photogs in the article have been accused of not being at the top of their field, being sponsored by the makers of their cameras (because that never happen in pro photography), likened to soccer dads, and the website has had its credentials questioned and accused of being nothing but propaganda, along with the misinformation that I shoot only bugs while the mantra is being hammered over and over that mirrorless cameras cant compete with tops DSLR's in sports (which I have agreed to many times over).</p>

<p>Wow.</p>

<p>Touchy much guys?</p>

<p>p.s., Ian...I truly meant no disrespect with the mention of the work you do overseas. That is why I included a smiley face. And I do shoot a little more then bugs. You may view my work here<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/<br>

where you will find portraiture, some street stuff (which I don't normally shoot), lots of photos of my wonderful little Chloe....oh, and some bugs. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've seen one mirrorless used by someone in the pit other than a friend/fan who somehow got access.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not saying that a photo pit is the be-all and end-all of everything, but if i saw Sonys, Fujis and Olys there, i would give more credence to some of the assertions of this article. to be fair, i do know a Nikon d810 shooter who also uses an A6000 as a handheld video cam, and have seen another guy use an Xpro1 with 35/1.4 for candids along with canon full-frame. i myself sometimes use a Fuji x100 for candids in crowded scenes where big cameras can be obtrusive. and i have shot some PJ stuff as well as casual/travel/landscape with mirrorless gear. so it's not like im anti-mirrorless, it's just that i dont think they're quite there yet for most pro applications. which shouldnt be surprising, because that's not their target audience. there are far more soccer dads than pro sports shooters out there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I am taking an XT1 out on some big jobs and the files are great. Great little camera to work with, the viewfinder is incredible, and the high ISO is amazing. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>i do like the Fuji system, and ive debated getting an XT1 and expanding my X-mount lens collection. it would work for a lot of my shooting, but continuous shooting/focus tracking is still its bane, and the high-ISO output, while good for APS-C, is still a notch or two below my current system. a particular dilemma is that Nikon DSLRs still have better AF and focus tracking capabilities, but Fuji has lens options which Nikon doesn't offer, especially for DX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I have been accused of being on a crusade, the photogs in the article have been accused of not being at the top of their field, being sponsored by the makers of their cameras (because that never happen in pro photography), likened to soccer dads, and the website has had its credentials questioned and accused of being nothing but propaganda,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>david, nowhere did i compare the 10 "pros" in this article to soccer dads. i said that was the target audience for the article. big difference. and here all this time i thought photographers were detail-oriented. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>david, nowhere did i compare the 10 "pros" in this article to soccer dads. i said that was the target audience for the article. big difference. and here all this time i thought photographers were detail-oriented.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>My bad Eric, I did read through your response rather quickly so I obviously misquoted you there. But at least I did read it and not push it off as a 'rant'. :)</p>