XT-1 for sports, we know its not ideal, but...

EphTwoEightEphTwoEight Registered Users Posts: 552 Major grins
edited September 10, 2015 in Cameras
I'm so tempted to go back and buy a big heavy camera with one of them mirror things, or give up the sports.:dunno

DAVE9235-L.jpg
DAVE9236-L.jpg
DAVE9237-L.jpg
DAVE9234-L.jpg

XT1 140mm 1/320 2.8 6400ISO :dunno

Comments

  • EphTwoEightEphTwoEight Registered Users Posts: 552 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2015
    During the day its not so bad...

    DAVE1991-XL.jpg
  • jonh68jonh68 Registered Users Posts: 2,711 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2015
    The x-t1 isn't marketed as a sports camera. The latest firmware 4.0 has helped some but isn't in the class of a DSLR for sports. Possibly the next generation or two it will. If you want a sports camera it is still DSLR. I gave up on sports years ago. Requires the most expensive gear and the return is very small from a professional perspective.
    www.jonimages.com
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2015
    Very impressive! But a lot of noise can be hidden in these small images, how was the noise? Care to post any crops or larger files? What were your autofocus settings? Did you pre-focus or were you in continuous focus or did you just mash the shutter button all the way down when you wanted a pic? Going to try my first HS Football game Friday night with my 7D2 and 70-200/2.8, I hope it does this well!
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2015
    jonh68 wrote: »
    If you want a sports camera it is still DSLR. I gave up on sports years ago. Requires the most expensive gear and the return is very small from a professional perspective.


    Shooting night sports may require expensive gear but shooting during the day doesn't necessarily require expensive lens or camera
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2015
    Brett1000 wrote: »
    Shooting night sports may require expensive gear but shooting during the day doesn't necessarily require expensive lens or camera

    Technically true, but the more expensive the gear, the higher the keeper rate. (generally, neglecting MF, Leica, etc)

    If you need to go to one game and come away with as many salable images of as many players on the team/field as possible, you need a good DSLR and a good lens.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • jonh68jonh68 Registered Users Posts: 2,711 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2015
    Brett1000 wrote: »
    Shooting night sports may require expensive gear but shooting during the day doesn't necessarily require expensive lens or camera

    Correct, but if sports were the primary reason to buy a camera it wouldn't be mirrorless, at least the Fuji system.

    I have been using my xt-1/55-200 for wildlife and I love the small size. However, when the birds actually move it can't keep up as good as my D3s although each firmware upgrade gets it closer. This is where the electronic viewfinder is also a hindrance since it goes blank for a moment after each shot which makes tracking a moving object a little more difficult in regards for the user to do it.
    www.jonimages.com
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2015
    jmphotocraft wrote: »
    Technically true, but the more expensive the gear, the higher the keeper rate. (generally, neglecting MF, Leica, etc)

    If you need to go to one game and come away with as many salable images of as many players on the team/field as possible, you need a good DSLR and a good lens.

    Bingo! If you're in it to sell and make a profit, in a low margin activity like youth sports, ITS ALL ABOUT THE KEEPER RATE AND MAKING YOUR WORKFLOW AS SIMPLE AND FAST AS POSSIBLE. A good, capable dSLR and a fast lens make that possible.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,129 moderator
    edited September 3, 2015
    For sports photography which includes indoor and night sports, in the Nikon world I would choose nothing less than a Nikon D750 or D4s, budget permitting. In Canon I would choose nothing less than a Canon 5D Mark III or a 1D X, budget permitting.

    Sports capable f2.8 zooms with ultrasonic motor autofocus technology are also indicated, as well as a few select sports prime lenses, according to the particular sport requirements. In Canon it's vital to also have the latest incarnation of sports lenses, for the reasons mentioned in this article:

    http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras

    Additionally, if you do this to compete with magazine quality images, you will want to have more than one body so you don't have to change lenses during the action. Changing lenses when the action unfolds can cost you valuable shots.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited September 3, 2015
    Canon side I'd expect a 7D Mark II to do very well also. I used to have the old 1D Mark II, which was FANTASTIC. You will forget its "only" 8MP, but it was a bit noisy for night shots (though the auto-focus in low light was absolutely mind blowing, think night motocross and kart racing and no football running back will be a problem). So I'd also throw a used 1-series into the mix, like a 1D Mark IV.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • jonh68jonh68 Registered Users Posts: 2,711 Major grins
    edited September 5, 2015
    mercphoto wrote: »
    Bingo! If you're in it to sell and make a profit, in a low margin activity like youth sports, ITS ALL ABOUT THE KEEPER RATE AND MAKING YOUR WORKFLOW AS SIMPLE AND FAST AS POSSIBLE. A good, capable dSLR and a fast lens make that possible.

    Which begs the question though, could someone make as much profit from the cheaper x-t1 and the 50-140 vs a more capable but more expensive DSLR version?

    If were doing low margin youth sports I would not be buying the expensive DSLR gear. I would take my xt1/55-200 and shoot daytime sports, concentrate on sportraits and be done with it. I have had too many years trying to justify my D3s/ Sigma 120-300 for sports and I maybe broke even. Action photos do not sell well. I've had sports information people contact me for pictures when their schools happen to be playing in area tournaments. They want SI quality and cheap coverage. Sports isn't my thing anymore anyway.

    Sports and portrait work are two different genres but I have made WAY much more money with my fuji system shooting portraits. Sports on the other hand requires much more capable cameras and lenses in regards to AFS but sports in general pay MUCH less. There are wire services that will pay their photographers $120 to be on the sideline of major college football games. When I was a stringer of the local newspaper it was $50 per game. For little league the team and portrait guy is going to make more money than action shooter even if they deliver SI quality. So, it doesn't matter what the keeper rate is if people don't buy the pictures. I needed another job so I could afford to be a able to shoot sports. I have sport shooter friends who love sports photography. They have to have day jobs to be able to shoot sports.

    From a strictly getting the action perspective, a DSLR wins. From a profit margin standpoint, a mirrorless or even low end DSLR will make more sense in regards to most sports.
    www.jonimages.com
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited September 8, 2015
    Good points John. A reasonable camera and lens can handle day-light sports. In fact in a month or so I'm going to find out how my Olympus E-M10 and the cheap 45-150 lens handle 4-year-old soccer myself.

    I would say if you want to do youth sports for profit you either need to do the night action (because Mom and Dad can't), which requires the better gear. Or do as you suggest and not do action at all and focus on sportraits. But its just too easy for mom and dad to get daytime sports images anymore.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • jonh68jonh68 Registered Users Posts: 2,711 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2015
    mercphoto wrote: »
    Good points John. A reasonable camera and lens can handle day-light sports. In fact in a month or so I'm going to find out how my Olympus E-M10 and the cheap 45-150 lens handle 4-year-old soccer myself.

    I would say if you want to do youth sports for profit you either need to do the night action (because Mom and Dad can't), which requires the better gear. Or do as you suggest and not do action at all and focus on sportraits. But its just too easy for mom and dad to get daytime sports images anymore.

    It has become easy for mom and dad to get nighttime action shots too, at least good enough they don't want to pay the guy that has 4k camera and 4k lens even $4 for a 4x6. The OP's images above are good enough for selling, but if parents can get anything close to that they are not buying. You also have the parents that are the "team" photographer and give other parents photos. Like I said, it is a low margin area of photography that requires high dollar equipment.
    www.jonimages.com
  • EphTwoEightEphTwoEight Registered Users Posts: 552 Major grins
    edited September 9, 2015
    Good points! I shoot for the news, usually two games a night, and they don't have real strict standards. I tried to follow Maxpreps guidelines when I could. But they go just to an online news source, and good enough for that. If there was any extra money, I would no doubt had a D4 or at least another 810. But this awesome little travel camera barely gets er done. And I get paid regardless.
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited September 10, 2015
    jonh68 wrote: »
    It has become easy for mom and dad to get nighttime action shots too, at least good enough they don't want to pay the guy that has 4k camera and 4k lens even $4 for a 4x6. The OP's images above are good enough for selling, but if parents can get anything close to that they are not buying. You also have the parents that are the "team" photographer and give other parents photos. Like I said, it is a low margin area of photography that requires high dollar equipment.

    true, it's got to be difficult for any photographer. The local paper has laid off most of it's photographers (sports or otherwise) and now uses viewer submissions and "interns"
Sign In or Register to comment.