Shooting Football with an A7RII

Ed_Ingold · November 12, 2015

Have to point out that MT said he wasnt going to review any more Sony cameras because the fanboys were too obnoxious.

</blockquote>

That's understandable. The reviewer can't stand being reviewed. Ming simply didn't do his homework. Most of my college professors managed to stay a page or two ahead in the textbook.

eric_arnold · November 12, 2015

Ming simply didn't do his homework.

</blockquote>

Sorry Edward, but i dont think that's the case at all; MT is probably the most detail-oriented and discerning of all the online camera reviewers out there, and he has no financial incentive to write overly-positive reviews of products or overlook their warts. what seems more likely is that Sony fanboys have a difficult time admitting any flaws or faults in those products, as we've seen in this forum with certain individuals. Surely one can't argue against having high professional standards and applying those standards to new products. The problem is that MT is coming from the perspective of a working commercial photographer, teacher, and photo essayist, while fanboys are coming from a much more subjective perspective. If you've actually read the comments on MT's posts, he engages objective questions. But i can see where being inundated with immature, obnoxious, and angry retorts from people who dont know what they're talking about and havent used that gear in demanding applications would get a little old after awhile. I guess those folks can always go to Steve Huff's page and SEE how he USES ALL CAPS and a LOT of Exclamation points (!) in his relentlessly-hyperbolic reviews, which dont seem to involve that much critical testing or objective analysis.

Ed_Ingold · November 12, 2015

I read Ming's reviews, and he was wrong on many key points. Basically, he doesn't like the small size and unfamiliar controls of the Sony, and this attitude is reflected in his review. Nobody likes to have his opinions disputed, but in this respect Ming is in a class by himself. Steve Huff likes the A7, and has purchased at least two for his own use. I don't always agree with Steve's analysis, but on the overall merits of the A7Rii, we concur. The Luminous Landscape review was also field-oriented, like Huff's, but more analytical and with practical value in mind.

I'm always skeptical of reviews. Most of the time I move on, but in Ming's case, I felt obliged to respond. Storming off in a huff doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his objectivity. Thank you, Ming. Keep in touch.

eric_arnold · November 12, 2015

Basically, he doesn't like the small size and unfamiliar controls of the Sony, and this attitude is reflected in his review.

</blockquote>

he said a lot more than that, actually. ming actually reviewed the A7, the A7R, the A7II, AND the A7RII. i wouldn't be so quick to downplay or dismiss his observations; in his <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/10/16/sony-a7-a7r/">initial review</a> of the A7R, he said you need IS with 36mp and--voila--it was there in the II version. he also said, "I really hope it succeeds: firstly, it really throws down the gauntlet to the other camera makers, hopefully forcing them to actually innovate (I’m looking at you, Nikon and Canon) to stay competitive" which is spot-on.

in the A7r <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/01/08/sony-a7r-review/">review</a>, he noted that using adapted lenses is not a perfect solution, "Even though the EVF with peaking and magnification makes it easier to focus than a modern DSLR without focusing aids, autofocus for critical work and moving subjects is definitely valuable." Then he noted, "The small size, relatively low mass and very loud/ rough shutter mechanism mean that you need higher than expected shutter speeds to yield perfect pixels; we’re talking 1/125 at an absolute minimum for the 55mm, and ideally 1/200+ for consistent results." He also pointed out the shutter vibration issues. He then compared the A7r to other current bodies/systems and concluded: " it really comes down to the lenses." Hard to argue with that, and a fairly comprehensive review, to boot.

So, before even addressing the A7II, Ming had in fact clearly done his homework. he found a lot to like and be encouraged by the early Sony models, but also some gotchas. The ergonomic and UI issues have been well-documented by other reviewers, so we can't put MT out on an island here in being critical of them.

Now, in the A7II <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/01/19/review-sony-a7-mark-ii/">review</a>, he began with an objective overview of the entire line:

Arguably, each A7 variant serves a niche – high resolution, high sensitivity/ video, general purpose (perhaps not really a niche). The problem is, each A7 variant arguably also has some serious deficiencies: the A7R suffers from very visible shutter vibration at typical shutter speeds, meaning critical pixels can only be obtained at very fast or very slow exposures; the A7S is very resolution limited, and similarly low-noise results – with more detail – can actually be obtained by downsampling the A7R to 12MP; the A7 has an AA filter which is probably a video compromise, but not so good for stills.

</blockquote>

again, can't really argue with that analysis. next, he talked about what's new in the A7II and praised the in-body stabilization, which he called a "big thing." He complained about the compressed RAW--again, an issue which has now been addressed--and compared the dynamic range to a Nikon D750 (something most fanboys cant do, unless they had both cameras). Finally, he said "mirrorless is coming of age, which is optimistic."

Which brings us to the A7RII <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/08/25/the-sony-a7r-ii-a7rii/">review</a>. Before even getting into the gist, he issued a disclaimer: "Fanboys should stop reading now. There are uncomfortable truths contained within this post." What are those truths? well, a lot of it was things mentioned in his previous reviews, like compression of files even in RAW. His biggest gripe was probably the operational speed:

Operationally, this does not feel like a fast camera. Every action seems slightly delayed, as though damped in oil. Power on is slow. Reviewing images and zooming in is laggy. Moving the focusing point requires at least one extra button press and the box moves in small increments instead of jumping a whole box-width. Even the bite point of the shutter release is a bit too deep, meaning it feels just a little less responsive than is ideal. I’m sure the PDAF sites on-sensor will make for snappy AF with legacy lenses – both Sony and Canon – but the ergonomics are so dire that this is hardly a good solution unless there are some non-IS (but AF) lenses you must have. And practically, if you can afford an A7RII, you can also afford a <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/07/02/canon-5dsr-review-part-1/" target="_blank">5DSR</a>. Even AF with normal E-mount lenses is not exactly speedy – justthe right side of acceptable most of the time, but in even slightly backlit situations, be prepared to wait – and get a lot of false positives.

</blockquote>

Again, nothing that can really be argued as not fundamentally true. And, to balance out his criticisms, he then listed 6 reasons why someone might buy the camera. That's the very definition of objectivity.

Which brings us to your comment. You are welcome to disagree, but you havent stated any of the "key points" you think he was wrong on. You did offer a reductionist argument of what he didn't like, which i just showed was entirely dismissive and perhaps unwilling to honestly consider any criticism as coming from an objective standpoint. You also neglected to point out the extent to which MT has analyzed the A7 series--that's no less than four in-depth posts--and also downplayed the fanboyism of Sony fanboys. There's a certain irony here, because you are critical of a critic who has gone deeper and farther than any other reviewer in assessing these cameras -- while being careful to separate an objective analysis from his personal opinion. He didn't flat-out say don't buy any of these cameras, he actually listed reasons why someone might want to buy one and what they can expect if they do.

Now at the end of the day, i for one appreciate his take and the fact that we're getting a more critical and objective analysis than someone who gets a loaner and reviews that, or who gets paid by the company to review cameras. Sure, MT has biases but he pretty much discloses all of them so there's no ethical quandry with his statements. I think the point that he was trying to make is that the Sony fanboys are over the top and have the zeal of religious fanatics, which also requires blind faith (or willful ignorance). If i was one of those fanboys, i'd probably make a condescending remark or two about him too...

Ed_Ingold · November 12, 2015

And practically, if you can afford an A7RII, you can also afford a <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/07/02/canon-5dsr-review-part-1/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">5DSR</a>.

</blockquote>

Yes, but what would you use for lenses capable of rendering 50 MP?

Slow power-up? Maybe. It takes about 1.5 seconds, and it's a legitimate complaint relative to a good DSLR. However, I make it a habit to turn it on as I raise the camera. By the time it reaches eye level, it's good to go.

Focus magnification takes two button pushes with a legacy lens, but it's automatic when you turn the focus ring on a compatible lens, manual or autofocus in manual mode, including single-servo once locked. I programmed a button, C2, next to the shutter release for use with legacy lenses. It's no big dieal to press it for focusing. Compared to manual focusing on the original camera (e.g., Leica or Nikon), it's much more effective and nearly as quick.

Moving the focus point? It would be nice to have 4-way control, but is it a deal-breaker? Mostly I focus and recompose. On the Sony, I have options. On a Leica, you have no other choice (yet it has worked for 80 years).

Shutter release has too long a stroke? Give me a break. Ever use a Leica, an Hasselblad, a Nikon F3? That "break" is perfect for pre-focus and AE.

Slow to chimp? Okay, but if you have time for that, speed is not in your equation anyway.

These are not objective judgements, rather display a prejudice against anything not DSLR. Needless to say, I have not bookmarked Ming Thein in my browser.

Karim Ghantous · November 13, 2015

I think, as many have noted, that DSLRs are still better for fast-moving sports. That's exactly why DSLRs are a useful, albeit niche, product. I'm not sure I'd use an A7r/II for sport but hey, why not right? I won't tell people what cameras they ought to be using. :-)

I will agree that the benefits of mirrorless bodies outweigh the disadvantages (and there are trade-offs), so the future is bright.

Mirrorless cameras are more popular than DSLRs - at least on Flickr, where 4 out of 5 of the most popular cameras are iPhones. The other is also a phone, the Samsung Galaxy S5. But is anyone surprised? Apple and Samsung are, overall, the two most popular camera brands. I suggest that will continue to hold true indefinitely.

With cell phones, everybody is an expert, nobody has an advantage

</blockquote>

I disagree there. Many, maybe most people don't know how to use their phone cameras properly. It isn't hard once you know a few things, however. The wide-angle lens is limiting, but OTOH that doesn't matter, given that your phone is always with you. The iPhones have, IMO, the highest quality cameras, so considering how small they are they deliver great imagery.

Ed_Ingold · November 13, 2015

With cell phones, everybody THINKS they're an expert. Actually, everybody with a digital camera thinks the same way. I hate shooting weddings because people stand up in the aisle during the recession, push in front during the formal group sessions and at the cake cutting. At least with sports and concerts you need credentials to shoot with the pros.

eric_arnold · November 13, 2015

Moving the focus point? It would be nice to have 4-way control, but is it a deal-breaker? Mostly I focus and recompose. On the Sony, I have options. On a Leica, you have no other choice (yet it has worked for 80 years).

</blockquote>

whether this is a dealbreaker or not depends on the application, obviously. for sports/action, it could be. we've already gone over why focus and recompose is not preferable to AF-C for action. and how many sideline sports shooters use Leicas? thought so. i doubt this will change with the SL which locks focus point during burst shooting, rendering the 11fps essentially useless for moving subjects.

a prejudice against anything not DSLR.

</blockquote>

i dont think so. MT has written volumes of direct comparisons and evaluative reviews, and has made a case for mirrorless on many occasions. to put this another way, to have a prejudice for mirrorless,they would have to be able to outperform DSLRs head to head. in most cases, they don't do this. what MT has done is point out where the rubber meets the road, where mirrorless is still lacking, and, in those few instances, where a mirrorless system might actually be preferable.

I will agree that the benefits of mirrorless bodies outweigh the disadvantages (and there are trade-offs),

</blockquote>

Depends on what benefits you're talking about. For one thing, all mirrorless bodies are not created equal. If we're talking about sports, mirrorless isn't optimal. for something like a lightweight travel kit, you could do worse than an Olympus or Fuji system. i think the point here is, you have to know what the tradeoffs are, and how they impact what you're trying to do.

Mirrorless cameras are more popular than DSLRs - at least on Flickr,

</blockquote>

Flickr and camera sales are two different things entirely.

At least with sports and concerts you need credentials to shoot with the pros.

</blockquote>

Funny you say that. the small form factor of mirrorless cameras--and here, we're including bridge cameras and things like the Canon G series--are often cited in marketing materials as being able to shoot concerts where DSLRs are not allowed (unless you are credentialed). in practice, you will see many more phone camera shooters in the crowd than real camera users, even at non-credentialed events.

Uhooru · November 14, 2015

I'm just curious. Why would a pro choose the really high resolution R II version for shooting sports?

Wouldn't the A7 II be better at it? Or do both cameras work the same in regard to AF features?

Carl Stone · November 15, 2015

Yes, Nikon and Canon sales are down, but not by nearly as much as Sony sales. The fact is camera sales are down across the board.

Ed_Ingold · November 16, 2015

In good light, the A7Rii has better autofocus than other models. In low light, the A7Sii leads the rest. The A7ii works well

enough with native lenses, but the R is better with A-mount and Canon. The slow continuous fps and low buffer capacity

make it a poor choice for pro sports by current standards.

Focus tracking is surprisingly robust, perhaps too much so. It holds the original subject tenaciously, ignoring closer

objects. If the original object is lost, it is slow to lock on to a new one. You must center the finder and repress the shutter

release for best results. It has less tendency to hunt in the middle of a continuous stream than my Nikon D3. At 84 MB/,

the buffer fills in 8 frames. I haven't tried JPEG-only yet (26 MP).

eric_arnold · November 16, 2015

I'm just curious. Why would a pro choose the really high resolution R II version for shooting sports? Wouldn't the A7 II be better at it? Or do both cameras work the same in regard to AF features?

In good light, the A7Rii has better autofocus than other models. In low light, the A7Sii leads the rest. The A7ii works well enough with native lenses, but the R is better with A-mount and Canon. The slow continuous fps and low buffer capacity make it a poor choice for pro sports by current standards.

</blockquote>

i actually dont think any of these cameras are optimal for shooting sports/action. A big difference between the 7II and the 7RII is the number of PDAF points (117 vs 399); the 7SII has expanded sensitivity, but no PDAF sensors -- its CDAF only, which limits its usefulness in low-light with moving subjects. it's <a href="http://briansmith.com/sony-a7sii-field-test-review/">been noted</a> that "For those shooting stills [the A7SII] is still noticeably slower than a7II and a7RII." None of these cameras can shoot faster than 5 fps.

eric_arnold · November 16, 2015

Just looking at spec comparisons, the main addition to the II series of Sony bodies seems to be the in-body stabilization and some videocentric features, as well as the tricked-out BSI sensor in the RII. however, they didn't especially goose any of these bodies for action performance in still shooting, although the IIS gets more competent AF than the original S.

So, to answer Barry's question, there wouldn't really be a specific reason for a pro sports shooter to go with Sony over another company. For casual sports shooters or "pro" landscape/portrait photographers, it may be a different story, although Thom Hogan's <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/pursuit-of-the-latest-gear.html">latest article</a> points out (yet again) why a 36mp DSLR may be preferable to those chasing image quality over a 42mp mirrorless -- essentially the Nikon 810 offers 14 bits of data and even with the firmware update, the A7RII only offers 11. Hmm, that's also something Ming Thein mentioned. Is Hogan also "prejudiced" in favor of DSLRs? Only if we believe that there is an inherent technical advantage to mirrorless that somehow he's not telling us about. but given that Hogan has a mirrorless website as well as a DSLR-centric one, that perception might not be completely grounded in rational logic.

At the end of the day, it seems pretty clear that mirrorless is getting pretty close to being "there" for many shooters, and may in actuality be there for some, depending on what <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/which-mirrorless-system.html">strata</a> you fall into. Hopefully, the next generation of ML bodies will get all the things right that need to be fixed on current bodies -- not just updated technology, but ergonomics and UI in some cases. But then, we're also due for a new pro sports body from Nikon, maybe two. So the question really becomes, can the bar be raised further in terms of performance in both formats? and will we see further evolution of EVF technology which can surpass the inherent advantage in continuous shooting situations OVFs currently enjoy? I think the answer to both questions will be 'yes' -- with the caveat that the second question isn't just a question of 'if,' but 'when,' and another caveat that some mirrorless makers may not actually want to capture the sports market as a short-term goal.

aplumpton · November 17, 2015

some mirrorless makers may not actually want to capture the sports market as a short-term goal

</blockquote>

I haven't been reading most of this thread as I don't do sports photography. But here are two outsider observations for what they are worth: The first is that this quote from Eric is probably true. The market for sports photographers and heavy tripod-bound DSLRs with their expensive long focal length optics is very limited in size. Why bother getting into it? The only reason I can see is the market for nature photographers (birds, other animals) where a good IS (or "VR") mirrorless with good viewer can be an alternative in some cases. But as many images will be tripod based, is there a need for an ML alternative? Perhaps if only to keep the weight down a bit on long treks.

The second point is that ML cameras like the A7RII provide increased IQ over former ML cameras and already have a very wide field of application for many photographers and I see only an increase in their availability as time goes on, also as some bodies can take optics from various manufacturers and thereby satisfy those who may wish to change to a lighter and smaller digital camera body without having to invest in new lenses right away. .

eric_arnold · November 17, 2015

The market for sports photographers and heavy tripod-bound DSLRs with their expensive long focal length optics is very limited in size. Why bother getting into it?

</blockquote>

We covered this a bit earlier in the thread, but i'll quickly run down my observations

<ul>

<li>Pro photography has long been identified with pro sports. Football games can have 20 million viewers or more per game, so that's a lot of exposure for whatever company's equipment is being used on the sidelines. So while the actual pool of pro sports photographers is a limited one, it is an influential one, because of its visibility. There's no nationally-televised event where you regularly get to see wildlife or landscape photographers at work.</li>

<li>The actual pool of amateur sports photographers -- soccer moms and volleyball dads -- is considerably larger. These folks are perhaps unlikely to buy $6000 lenses to shoot on $5000 cameras, but they are a target for both DSLR and Mirrorless companies. If you dont have the same kind of shooting requirements as pros, you can maybe get away with the compromises a top-level Mirrorless system offers, although a high-end DSLR like the Nikon D7200 still has better overall performance than the top Mirrorless offerings like the Fuji XT1 or the Olympus E-M1. </li>

<li>Both Fuji and Sony are sponsoring photographers who do shoot sports such as motorsports or cycling, although a recent article on the subject showed this is rarely exclusively the case. In any event, the camera companies want to project their products as being capable for a variety of conditions, without necessarily capturing the pro market. I'm not sure if it makes sense for Mirrorless companies to develop long constant aperture primes, but they've been somewhat competitive at other focal lengths, especially m4/3 which has something like <a href="http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html">80 available lenses</a>. The Sony A7 series hasn't really been marketed as a sports camera -- the big sell there is sensor technology, in-body stabilization, compatibility with adapted lenses, and the Zeiss lenses. But the A6000's native frame rate is fast enough it could conceivably be a good sports camera, however the E-mount lens lineup doesn't really support this yet.</li>

</ul>

The only reason I can see is the market for nature photographers (birds, other animals) where a good IS (or "VR") mirrorless with good viewer can be an alternative in some cases. But as many images will be tripod based, is there a need for an ML alternative?

</blockquote>

The short answer is yes. Not everyone wants to lug around a tripod, and in some cases (like travel), it's not always feasible. In-body stabilization such as the Olympus and Sony bodies offer is pretty effective for everything from handheld macros to video applications, and some Mirrorless systems offer fairly long variable-aperture zooms in compact packages -- the 70-300 VR for Nikon 1 is 810mm equivalent @5.6 at the long end, and small enough to fit places other lens/bodies combinations can't. That lens realizes the potential of the CX format, by making the 2.7x crop an advantage, and the Nikon 1 system has blazing AF performance with native lenses (and decidedly less-so, with adapted lenses). So that has obvious appeal for birders, since you can't even get to 800mm on a conventional system without a frightfully expensive, heavy long lens AND a teleconverter. Similarly, a m4/3 body with the Panasonic 100-300 is 600mm @5.6. That's a lot of reach in a small package. the problem is that you dont get the same subject-isolating abilities with Nikon 1 or m4/3 you would with a full frame or even APS-C body due to the crop factor and increased DoF. With APS-C and full frame mirrorless, the advantages there seem to be best realized with small, fast primes.

Sign In

Shooting Football with an A7RII

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in