Sony Sports 5 Download |LINK|

Whenever I mentor new photographers, I get them to focus on what I call The Big 3 - or the trifecta of lenses - the 12-24mm, 24-70mm and the 70-200mm. For most work, I think this is a great trio of lenses. For sports, when I need more reach, I add to that trifecta with my big Sonys.

Sony 400mm f/2.8 G Master OSS: This is really my number one sports lens, especially when paired with the a9 II. This Sony 400mm is a lens like I have never seen before in quality, in use and in build and features. After shooting it for half a match during the MLS season, I was left very impressed. The way this lens was designed, with the heavier elements closer to the mount, is also very special. The remarkable light weight and excellent balance of the FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS lens gives me quicker, more precise panning, whether shooting handheld or on a monopod. And I prefer handheld. Like my other G Master lenses, the 400mm has sharpness, contrast, color, and bokeh performance that is second to none.

Sony Sports 5 Download

Download 🔥 https://cinurl.com/2y4OVN 🔥

Using the a7R II's Flexible AF point setting (with 'small' and 'medium-sized' AF areas) is much closer to a 'traditional' working method when photographing sports with a DSLR. Due to the a7R II's image playback/review blackout times however, tracking even the most predictable run of an athlete is difficult. Erratically moving subjects are even more of a crapshoot.

An optional two-battery VGC2EM grip greatly improves handling, removes this palm pressure point and doubles the battery life. I made it through the game in three, fully charged batteries with 700 total images shot. That frame count is a clear case of 'undershooting' in terms of sports shooting, especially in the age of 10 or more frames per second on pro-bodied SLRs. So while the vertical grip would certainly have helped, I may have still struggled with battery life.

I wonder if all the described deficiencies are software only. It seems so. May be better hardware is needed at the end of the day but it seems a lot can be done in a firmware update for sports or a sports app.......

I'd love to see one evaluating how entry level DSLRs handle sports. For example, the D3300 has an AF system dating back to the D200 era. The Canon SL1 would also be a good candidate - its AF system looks pretty old too.

DSLR heck! The A7Rii is delivering better image quality than my Hasselblad, in a smaller, lighter package, with a much wider choice of lenses and 6 stops more ISO. How it does for pro sports is of absolutely no concern to me. A DSLR to the A7Rii is like a Jeep to a Porsche. One will roll over logs, the other will take a 0.9 G turn without rolling over. Whatever lights your fire.

Thanks for the review -- I own canon gear, and now the a7RII as well and I had to say that I am not giving up one for the other. I love both. My love is landscapes, and even there, I found that my metabones did not work reliably, and I've not invested in sony's native 16-35 since I already have great canons like all of their 16-35 and the 11-24. I love using the A7rII around home now with the fab 55 prime, but would never try to replace my 5dsr plus wide canon lenses or 7dII plus long for landscapes or wildlife that are spot on predictable each time. I may play with learning how to combine shots with my prime lenses on sony native to get pano landscapes. But if you have a few seconds of the right light, I don't know how that would work.

As I understand it, from this article, this camera, as it is now, may not be suitable for fast moving wildlife either, such as birds (eagles, hawks, etc.).

It's a surprise that Sony did not extensively test this camera in such fields, sports and fast moving wildlife.

Ability to maintain focus on fast and erratic moving subjects is very difficult If it were an easy solve, every manufacturer would do it as well as Canon and Nikon do. The reality is, it is extremely complex with lots of contradictions. The second part is: testing. How many different types of wildlife are predictable enough to supply testers with reliable test data? Sports, at least, provides much more predictability - you know where the event will be and you can position yourself properly. Now, how many professional photographers that are qualified to shoot sports at a professional level does Sony have on contract to get data from? You're not talking about studio work here. You're talking about a very tiny subset of photography. AND, in the case of wildlife, a very unreliable test environment to get reliable data on. It's a very tough nut to crack and the business can't wait for it to be cracked to release products.

Sony is a powerful and a wealthy company, and no doubt they can afford to contract with at least "a few" wildlife and sports photographers.

But in all fairness, again, Sony may not have intended this camera for these fields. With a 42 mp sensor, the target is most likely the studio and the wedding photographers, as well as lab/scientific photography, mainly.

Most of your observations affect a6000 owners for sports : not enough reach with native glass, bad ergonomics with body not high enough for good grip, and short batt. life (cheap battery grip solves both)

Challenge : using my native 55210 on big fields without loss of quality of clear image zoom. Workaround : bought the highest quality teleconverter i could find, an olympus 1.7x. With A6000 1.5x crop it can go to 535mm ff equiv. (210mm x 1.5 x 1.7 = 535mm) without loss of light a rear teleconverter would cause. However, sel55210 isn't the FE 70-200 glass quality and $ diff. much higher, prob. not good enough for paid work? something to test out?

I thought that the concept of this article was great: find a demanding but open sports photographer who can write well and leave him or her to it. It might be interesting to dump the same kit on a wildlife or dance or police stakeout photographer.

Sony may NOT be attempting to take over the Sports AF technology field. Personally I bought a Zeiss Loxia manual focus lens for this very reason, I want the focus control. Do i shoot sports, NO! Do most photog's shoot sports, NO! 98% of Photogs do NOT shoot sports, so why buy a A7r ll for sports. There's enough Canon & Nikon DSLR cameras to handle that small niche. I was after the large full frame chip, with highest resolution possible. Thats what a A7r is best at. The improved version A7r ll in shutter operations and passive AF is GOOD enough, too get GREAT sharp photographs. Regards, Don@eastwestphoto

I genuinely wonder why there is such an emotional attachment to mirrorless cameras, and the Sony a7RII in particular. The a7RII appears superb on paper and in leisurely situations, but clearly isn't "there" yet for action and for most pro usage. The overheated rhetoric is more akin to a religion or favored sports team than a reasoned discussion.

For genres like wildlife, sports and birding I doubt anyone would shooting those will be thrilled to shoot exclusively with a mirrorless camera considering tracking is still very much a DSLR strength.

No, many pros never shoot sports or wildlife. BUT! but after 35 years of earning a living with cameras, it is my humble opinion that nothing uncovers the underlying weaknesses of a camera/lens better than a sports assignment. It tests ruggedness, weather sealing, battery life, focus speed, focus accuracy, frames per second, low light sensitivity, and handling in pressure situations. A camera that can handle a sports assignment can handle just about every other situation. But a camera that performs well for landscapes or the studio may or many not be able to handle action.

"I genuinely wonder why people think all pros are either sports shooters or wild life shooters." - I do completely agree that it's a strange leap of faith to take this article and extrapolate that to mean studio and event/wedding pros would find the camera not up to snuff. Especially given some of the observations in the article that explain situations where the Sony does a much better job than Canon in the conclusion section.

JunzInc. Read my two posts above again--I never said or implied such a thing. I think the a7RII is a dandy camera within its limitations. No one says you can't use the a7RII for sports; it is simply a poor tool for tasks of this sort.

Hotdog: The answer to your question is that people don't buy this camera for sports and action photography. As the article says "..the a7R II isn't marketed as a sports camera." I use my Canon 7D DSLR for action and long telephoto photography and my a7RII for pretty much everything else. If I wanted one camera for all types of photography, a DSLR is still the only way to go.

This article pinpoints what exactly about the a7R II makes it unsuitable for sports. If you walk away from the article thinking the a7R II can't track, you've walked away with the wrong message entirely.

Excellent, real-world review providing real-world pros and cons. It's a rarity that someone who is a competent sports photographer who normally shoots Canon or Nikon gives another brand a solid field test. A review like this is useful to people - especially when it's honest about the areas where the camera is better than it's Canon counterparts as well. Most fanboys here want to claim it's either the best invention ever or complete garbage. Most real photographers know the trugh is always in the middle. A good, thought provoking review. Thank you!

Oh my - revisionist history. The thing is - those sports photos were a lot less in number and quality. Your comment is akin to saying "how did people get from A to B without cars? Who needs a car today? The job is infinitely easier and the results much better with quality AF. Just like getting from A to B is easier by car than by horse

A7RII is probably not any better than a Canon 70D or Nikon D7000 when it comes to sports, and still people are trying to prove that it's good for everything. No, it isn't. Sorry for that but it isn't and it's not meant to be anyway. And look at lens selection (or lack of it when it comes to real lenses for sports).

A7RII is a nice camera option, that's all.

Hell, go with A68/A77 and you'll save thousands of bucks and get better or at least equivalent results. e24fc04721