dirk
Founder MFT Community
I use both, MFT and L-Mount cameras. When I do sport photography of my kid (field hockey), fps is an important factor. I do not need extreme burst rates, but 3 or 4fps is often too slow.
I need a mechanical shutter and live view- I need to see all the time what is going on, because field hockey is a sport in which you can not predict the movement of the players and the change the direction very fast- Similar to soccer. Therefore I cannot afford a viewfinder black out and I need most of the time AFC to have it more convenient. Frame rates from 5fps are the minimum for this sport, better is 7 fps. The more experience you have with that sport and with your gear, the easier it gets also with 7fps.
This is why even the Lumix S5 was "good enough" for my use cases.
I made a quick overview about the different fps of the different cameras I used so far (S5, S5ii and G9) and compared that to each otehr and the new Panasonic Lumix G9 Mk2. I was quite impressed by the performance of the "old" Lumix G9 when I tested it the first time last week.
Please bear in mind, that it is quite difficult to get the correct data. Sometimes there is no information whether a specific fps rate is achievalle with Jpeg only or also if you shoot in Jpeg & RAW at the same time. In the past I always shot only in Jpeg (highest quality), because of the buffer. If you need absolutely RAW too, make your research.
For my use cases, the Lumix S5 with 7fps in AFC was "good enough". But my new Lumix G9 (MK1) is taking this to another level. Not that I need 12fps, but 9fps in AFC are really comfortable. The question for me is now whether the higher fps rate of the Lumix G9 vs. my Lumix S5ii compensates the advantages of the better AF of the S5ii vs. the "old" DFD system of the G9 Mk1.
The lens will probably play also a role in this. My L-Mount tele zooms are more modern than my old Olympus 70-300 tele zoom. I am really curious how this will turn out. It would be great, if the G9 would keep up with the S5ii, because the combo Lumix G9 & Olympus 75-300 zoom is a lot lighter than a Lumix S5ii with a Sigma 100-400 zoom. That is 1.1kg vs. 2.2kg
I need a mechanical shutter and live view- I need to see all the time what is going on, because field hockey is a sport in which you can not predict the movement of the players and the change the direction very fast- Similar to soccer. Therefore I cannot afford a viewfinder black out and I need most of the time AFC to have it more convenient. Frame rates from 5fps are the minimum for this sport, better is 7 fps. The more experience you have with that sport and with your gear, the easier it gets also with 7fps.
This is why even the Lumix S5 was "good enough" for my use cases.
I made a quick overview about the different fps of the different cameras I used so far (S5, S5ii and G9) and compared that to each otehr and the new Panasonic Lumix G9 Mk2. I was quite impressed by the performance of the "old" Lumix G9 when I tested it the first time last week.
Please bear in mind, that it is quite difficult to get the correct data. Sometimes there is no information whether a specific fps rate is achievalle with Jpeg only or also if you shoot in Jpeg & RAW at the same time. In the past I always shot only in Jpeg (highest quality), because of the buffer. If you need absolutely RAW too, make your research.
For my use cases, the Lumix S5 with 7fps in AFC was "good enough". But my new Lumix G9 (MK1) is taking this to another level. Not that I need 12fps, but 9fps in AFC are really comfortable. The question for me is now whether the higher fps rate of the Lumix G9 vs. my Lumix S5ii compensates the advantages of the better AF of the S5ii vs. the "old" DFD system of the G9 Mk1.
The lens will probably play also a role in this. My L-Mount tele zooms are more modern than my old Olympus 70-300 tele zoom. I am really curious how this will turn out. It would be great, if the G9 would keep up with the S5ii, because the combo Lumix G9 & Olympus 75-300 zoom is a lot lighter than a Lumix S5ii with a Sigma 100-400 zoom. That is 1.1kg vs. 2.2kg
