Using a Leica M for Sports Photography

[Guest BigSplash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In a thread I started some months ago it was clear that professionals favour DSLR with a large lens (zoom or Telphoto) for sports photography. I recently read that some decades ago a pro bought normal tickets for Wimbeldon and using a Leica M with Telyt obtained stunning and differentiated images compared to the normal press position near the net.

 

I was fortunate to attend last weekend's Monte Carlo tennis final and thought I'd give it a go using a M8 and a 90mm Summicron of 1975 vinatge. I was amased by the quality of image and detail ...the tennis ball cropped image from the same photo I think proves this. I also show a wide angle shot (21mm Super Angulon again of 1975 vintage) which proves just how far from the court my seat was!. The press pack all had Nikon or Canon DSLR's of course.....!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[cbretteville]

Don't know, could be that their agencies/papers have a deal with C or N. As you have shown it is clearly doable. I shot an airshow last summer with my M8. I used a 90/2.8 and a 135/4 for the action shots and I came away with a surprising amount of keepers.

Carl

[LeicaMSeattle]

The way an image is used in a newspaper layout is limited by the column format, the amount of accompanying text and location of advertisements. Sports pictures therefore are shot fairly tight, with the essential elements of player(s)/athlete(s),with their associated equipment, along with the ball or puck in the frame. The SLR/DSLR with long telephotos with motordrives/large memory buffers are best at capturing "peak action" photographs. That's not to say that it can't be done with our M8/M9, but you would have to be much closer (to shoot tighter) and have impeccable timing and anticipation.

[elansprint72]

So; according to you, not only are all the management at Leica taking all the possible wrong turnings with the way they run the company; all professional sports photographers are making life hard for themselves too?

[stuny]

A lovely set.

[Guest BigSplash]

So; according to you, not only are all the management at Leica taking all the possible wrong turnings with the way they run the company; all professional sports photographers are making life hard for themselves too?

 

Well things are never black and white.....People keep telling me that any approach in photography is a compromise and it is how you make those compromises that makes the difference. Several people have said to me that pro photos in newspapers are overall poor quality and not as good as images I have taken or show above.....When I heard that once I was shocked and then looked at some of the stuff that gets printed. I am not referring here at all to National Geographic, or magazine front covers but newspapers and I have started looking critically ...try it!

 

In the example above do these pros really think that they can obtain differentiated images huddled in the same area with the same long focus lenses? My photo of Nadal serving is from a very different position and I do not in anyway suggest it is fabulous etc etc but I do say that it is different to shooting from the same place as all others. I thought pros were in the business of framing their images differently!

 

As for Leica strategy I suppose that longer term they will hope for the S2 with its weather seals being used by Sports Photographers for close ups at a distance, as well as near shots. I am interested how quickly you can change lenses on a S2 as you follow a football match compared to a M9 or two M9's with a 135mm and 35mm fitted.

 

Finally if one or two respected pros switched to Leica nad started delivering the goods I guess the future will be different. When I started my thread on why Pros do not choose Leica a recuurent theme was that it is perceived as post war technology, and here is no street credibility if you choose a Leica M. I suspect Leica management would do well to address that issue as they actually have a great story to tell on technology and much more besides.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pros are in the business of providing what picture editors want. Not what they want personally

 

I can't comment on whether pro photos in newspapers are better than your work, as I haven't seen very much of yours

[Guest BigSplash]

Andy I agree that pros are there to provide what picture editors want and not what they like personally.

I also agree that it is pretty futile comparing the quality of my work against that of a pro...you haven't seen much of mine and in any case when I take images I have no deadline or pressure which clearly a pro has. Hell if my Leica fails to function I miss the shot and I eventually will send the camera to Solms for a few months...that is not a luxury thata Pro can afford.

 

I am surprised however that you do not comment my other points:

1 Pros bundled together in the same place as per my photo above with the same long focus lenses are NOT going to have differentiated images.

2 Photographers are in the business of using their experience to frame images in special ways .....I do not see how the many DSLR guys in my image achieve that one! I know that my shot from the stands looking downwards is different to any of the shots that were carried by the press, which DID all look the same

3 How actually can anyone switch lenses as quickly as one can with a M camera when using any DSLR including the S2....is that really an irrelevance for a pro sports photographer?

4 Is it unthinkable that Leica can renter the sports pro market and if not why not?

Edited May 3, 2010 by BigSplash
correct typos

[redbaron]

All the pro sports photographers I know use whatever gear they are given. Most couldn't give a rat's what brand it is, so long as it focusses fast enough and the batteries last long enough.

 

As for position of choice; I can remember getting to matches early, staking out a claim and defending it with a monopod, if necessary. You can't move around and different doesn't work. About 10 feet away from the net was my favourite spot. Any shot taken from above net height is generally seen by editors as coming from an amateur in the stands. They don't want different and they don't want amateur. They want perfectly timed and focussed. That's all.

 

No tennis pro in his right mind would even take an M in his bag. They are totally inappropriate. (bearing in mind that I now shoot only Leica Ms and love them dearly) Tennis needs big, fast zooms, lightning fast drives and huge buffers. Switching lenses at tennis is for people who can't afford enough cameras. Each lens has a camera on it. Simple.

 

Your shot, Frank is obviously taken from the stands, the crowd seems bored and the guy playing with his camera is distracting. The crowd needs to be thrown out of focus and the drain behind the player's head and the sponsor's name behind his racquet need to be moved. Never put a diagonal line behind a subject's head.

 

I probably could have taken this shot with an M, but I probably would have been thrown out of the tournament for causing a disturbance. The guys around around me would have been rolling all over the court laughing so hard.

 

(Nikon D1x, lens at 92 mm, 1/2000 at 2.8)

[andybarton]

 

I am surprised however that you do not comment my other points:

 

I don't have to comment on everything

 

 

1 Pros bundled together in the same place as per my photo above with the same long focus lenses are NOT going to have differentiated images.

 

Correct. Because that's what picture editors want. Why take something you can't sell?

 

2 Photographers are in the business of using their experience to frame images in special ways .....I do not see how the many DSLR guys in my image achieve that one! I know that my shot from the stands looking downwards is different to any of the shots that were carried by the press, which DID all look the same

 

No they're not. They are in the business of providing what they are asked for. You shot looks like it was taken by a punter in the stand - because it was.

 

3 How actually can anyone switch lenses as quickly as one can with a M camera when using any DSLR including the S2....is that really an irrelevance for a pro sports photographer?

 

What? How many of these guys switch lenses? None. Why would they need to? If they are not using zooms, they have several bodies each with a prime that they will need.

 

4 Is it unthinkable that Leica can renter the sports pro market and if not why not?

 

Yes. Leica don't have a product to compete in this market and they would be absolutely insane to want to try to enter it.

 

Frank. Leica is a very small company, with limited funds. The investment that they put into the S2 was huge, by their standards and I am not sure how long it's going to take to see any payback from that. Never, probably.

 

How much do you think it would cost to make a dSLR, and lenses, that could compete with the Pro Canons and Nikons of this world? Millions and millions of any currency you car e to name. And would the Pros buy them when they'd done this? No. Because they are all quite happy using their Nikons and Canons and would see no point at all in paying 2x or 3x the price for a name. Nor would their editors want to pay 2x or 3x the price of the photographs, just to cover the photogs overhead.

 

If the cameras are provided as loaners, the companies loaning the kit want LOTS of back up bits available NOW, this minute, not at Christmas, if you're lucky.

 

I really don't think that you have thought this through. I'm not a business man so I haven't had the experience of running companies as you have. But I can recognise a non-opportunity when I see one.

[elansprint72]

I am obliged to redbaron for proving exactly why sports photogs use Canon/Nikon. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Tools for the job.

 

Now Frank, get back to telling us why you should be CEO of Leica. Again.

[Guest BigSplash]

All the pro sports photographers I know use whatever gear they are given. Most couldn't give a rat's what brand it is, so long as it focusses fast enough and the batteries last long enough.

 

As for position of choice; I can remember getting to matches early, staking out a claim and defending it with a monopod, if necessary. You can't move around and different doesn't work. About 10 feet away from the net was my favourite spot. Any shot taken from above net height is generally seen by editors as coming from an amateur in the stands. They don't want different and they don't want amateur. They want perfectly timed and focussed. That's all.

 

No tennis pro in his right mind would even take an M in his bag. They are totally inappropriate. (bearing in mind that I now shoot only Leica Ms and love them dearly) Tennis needs big, fast zooms, lightning fast drives and huge buffers. Switching lenses at tennis is for people who can't afford enough cameras. Each lens has a camera on it. Simple.

 

Your shot, Frank is obviously taken from the stands, the crowd seems bored and the guy playing with his camera is distracting. The crowd needs to be thrown out of focus and the drain behind the player's head and the sponsor's name behind his racquet need to be moved. Never put a diagonal line behind a subject's head.

 

I probably could have taken this shot with an M, but I probably would have been thrown out of the tournament for causing a disturbance. The guys around around me would have been rolling all over the court laughing so hard.

 

(Nikon D1x, lens at 92 mm, 1/2000 at 2.8)

 

RedBaron ..sorry for the late reply ..I missed this!

First let me say I think your photo is excellent and frankly much better than my own. It is dramatic, excellent colour balance and captures the moment.

I notice that you shot at 90mm and at a wide aperture of f2.8 ...this could be done with a Leica also could it not? The other points seem to be based on actual experience with picture editors and actually having to deliver images for a living, which I have never done.

My point was to demonstrate what can be achieved with a M camera and away from the press pack. I believe that judging the moment as you did is important for these types of images, however I believe that a M camera is better adapted for that.

 

It is a pity that an image can be rejected because it is shot from the stands, as that suggests amateur to an editor. I am of the opinion that sponsor's names invariably feature in images that are printed or shown on TV. As for the crowd shot that was just to show you where I was sitting.

[Guest BigSplash]

Frank. Leica is a very small company, with limited funds. The investment that they put into the S2 was huge, by their standards and I am not sure how long it's going to take to see any payback from that. Never, probably.

 

How much do you think it would cost to make a dSLR, and lenses, that could compete with the Pro Canons and Nikons of this world? Millions and millions of any currency you car e to name. And would the Pros buy them when they'd done this? No. Because they are all quite happy using their Nikons and Canons and would see no point at all in paying 2x or 3x the price for a name. Nor would their editors want to pay 2x or 3x the price of the photographs, just to cover the photogs overhead.

 

If the cameras are provided as loaners, the companies loaning the kit want LOTS of back up bits available NOW, this minute, not at Christmas, if you're lucky.

 

I really don't think that you have thought this through. I'm not a business man so I haven't had the experience of running companies as you have. But I can recognise a non-opportunity when I see one.

 

The business opportunity it would seem to me revolves around what RedBaron says . Essentially if it is the case that Sports Photographers MUST have a DSLR with large memory fast focussing, and rapid fire shutter speed plus a zoom that is of large aperture then Leica today is in the cold, as it has no such product.

 

Leica has invested in the S2, which since it has waterproof seals is made to be used in rugged environments. You suggest that the S2 is going to be a flop and maybe you are right.....it is expensive compared to a Pro Canon or Nikon, and it has a format that maybe is overkill for most pros.

However if Leica believe in the S2 why would they not introduce a fast telephoto zoom? Why would such a lens not become available on S2 junior that is rumoured?

 

Since RedBaron's image was done at 92mm ..why is it that a M9 with a 90mm could not have done this shot?

[zlatkob]

You did very well considering your position in the stands. About the pros packed together and using Nikon/Canon, I think there are several considerations:

1. They have an assigned place on the court. I don't believe the management would allow them to walk around anywhere else. The pros need to have a spot that's close enough where they can shoot consistently and reliably, without getting in anyone's way or having others in their way.

2. Getting different images is a much lower priority than getting key moments. I imagine the editors typically want key moments clearly photographed; being different is probably not such a virtue in their world.

3. Nikon and Canon allow amazingly fast & good autofocus with long telephotos and wide apertures. The pros may prefer to have the player be very sharp and isolated, and the background very out of focus. Your shot is good, but has more depth of field than they likely prefer.

[redbaron]

You did very well considering your position in the stands. About the pros packed together and using Nikon/Canon, I think there are several considerations:

1. They have an assigned place on the court. I don't believe the management would allow them to walk around anywhere else. The pros need to have a spot that's close enough where they can shoot consistently and reliably, without getting in anyone's way or having others in their way.

2. Getting different images is a much lower priority than getting key moments. I imagine the editors typically want key moments clearly photographed; being different is probably not such a virtue in their world.

3. Nikon and Canon allow amazingly fast & good autofocus with long telephotos and wide apertures. The pros may prefer to have the player be very sharp and isolated, and the background very out of focus. Your shot is good, but has more depth of field than they likely prefer.

 

1. There are no assigned places on tennis courts at any of the matches I've shot. That's just wrong. Either side of the net is the best spot. End of story.

Edited May 17, 2010 by redbaron

[redbaron]

Since RedBaron's image was done at 92mm ..why is it that a M9 with a 90mm could not have done this shot?

 

That ball was probably moving at around 200 kph.