DSLR to mirrorless
Discussion
I've been taking photographs since I was knee high to a grass hopper, and that was a very long time ago! I moved into "proper" cameras and lenses with an F2 Nikon and have stayed with them, although I did consider Canon when changing to digital. I preferred the handling of the Nikon range (a very personal subject that) and since have accumulated the 12/24, 24/70, 70/200 and the 200/400 and the 105 macro lenses which cover just about anything I will ever need, and I also have the 1.4 and 1.7 tele-converters. But my dear old D3 is showing its age - still working perfectly but since my majority of photography today is sport I would like to increase the fps which at the moment is a maximum of11fps. Analysing golf swings needs far higher than that!
Now I know zero about the new mirrorless cameras, but read that they can produce a far higher fps rate, and I believe are pretty quiet, a factor which with a DSLR limits just how close to a player I can be. So, I'd like to ask for the collective advice of people here. Obviously I am limited to Nikon or a camera that uses the same mount, so I look forward to reading your replies.
Now I know zero about the new mirrorless cameras, but read that they can produce a far higher fps rate, and I believe are pretty quiet, a factor which with a DSLR limits just how close to a player I can be. So, I'd like to ask for the collective advice of people here. Obviously I am limited to Nikon or a camera that uses the same mount, so I look forward to reading your replies.
lowdrag said:
Now I know zero about the new mirrorless cameras, but read that they can produce a far higher fps rate, and I believe are pretty quiet, a factor which with a DSLR limits just how close to a player I can be. So, I'd like to ask for the collective advice of people here. Obviously I am limited to Nikon or a camera that uses the same mount, so I look forward to reading your replies.
Mirrorless cameras have an 'electronic shutter' mode which is as silent as using the camera on your phone as nothing mechanical moves in the camera when you take a picture, I don't know masses about the fps of the different cameras but the Fujis are up at 20 fps for a short burst. This site seems to give a decent outline of how long the bursts can be.The Nikon mirrorless uses a different mount the the SLR (Z mounts vs F mount) so you'll need an adaptor, and from what I was hearing when their first one was launched it wasn't that well received. I could well be misremembering so it's worth checking with more informed people!
Tony1963 said:
For analysing golf swings, wouldn’t a 4K video camera with slo-mo be best? Absolutely silent, and probably cheap too.
You are probably right there, but I also do a lot of motor racing photography and during, for example, the week at Le Mans take up to 4,000 shots - most of which are of course deleted afterwards! I admit that video isn't really my thing though.lowdrag said:
Tony1963 said:
For analysing golf swings, wouldn’t a 4K video camera with slo-mo be best? Absolutely silent, and probably cheap too.
You are probably right there, but I also do a lot of motor racing photography and during, for example, the week at Le Mans take up to 4,000 shots - most of which are of course deleted afterwards! I admit that video isn't really my thing though.Tony1963 said:
4,000?
Yep, perhaps a change in approach is needed. I try to take photos as if I were using slide film. Slows me right down, and much less time spent deleting!
I've been in the press room at Le Mans and similarly at international GT races. I've seen pro-photographers sorting through photographs taken during, say, practice and qually. 4,000 a week? Lowdrag needs to press the shutter more often if he wants to be a pro. Yep, perhaps a change in approach is needed. I try to take photos as if I were using slide film. Slows me right down, and much less time spent deleting!
The difference between a good image and a fabulous one can be the matter of a fraction of a second.
I realise that, but unless it was my income I’d not go to that extreme. When I bought my first dSLR in 2004 I fell into the trap of machine-gunning air shows and motorsport, but 99.9% of the time nothing noteworthy happens. Might as well set up a camera on remote and sit back with a cuppa!
I’ve even dropped panning back to my 35mm days of one shot per pass!
I’ve even dropped panning back to my 35mm days of one shot per pass!
Tony1963 said:
4,000?
Yep, perhaps a change in approach is needed. I try to take photos as if I were using slide film. Slows me right down, and much less time spent deleting!
I am trackside with press passes, and two cars are heading for Mulsanne and there is place for only one. Two seconds and I have taken nearly 25 shots, and delete the lot! I am at the Dunlops at the start of a Jaguar only race, and one car spins. One just keeps the finger on the tit. In my film days I waited and waited, and still have the best photo I never took in my head, but took the shot a fraction too late. I remember when Fuji brought out the 400 ASA film, and even then I limited myself to 7 rolls of 36 per day! I have now consigned over 2,000 negatives to a company to scan so I can keep those I want to. Expensive, but I want to classify all my photos now before it is too late.Yep, perhaps a change in approach is needed. I try to take photos as if I were using slide film. Slows me right down, and much less time spent deleting!
Derek Smith said:
I've been in the press room at Le Mans and similarly at international GT races. I've seen pro-photographers sorting through photographs taken during, say, practice and qually. 4,000 a week? Lowdrag needs to press the shutter more often if he wants to be a pro.
The difference between a good image and a fabulous one can be the matter of a fraction of a second.
Dang, I better up my game as well then! :-DThe difference between a good image and a fabulous one can be the matter of a fraction of a second.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff