M9 at a swim meet was pleasantly suprising

[KCS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was heading out yesterday to watch my kids compete in a swim meet and at the last minute decided to leave my DSLR at home and take the M9. At this point in their swimming careers one swim meet pretty much looks like the next, so it seemed like a low-risk experiment.

 

My usual swim meet kit: D700 with a 70-200mm lens, shot at f4, ISO 1600. At the last meet I took 330 pictures and it was a 3 hour meet.

 

My ‘experimental’ kit: M9 with an 90 Elmarit, shot wide open (2.8), ISO 1000. I shot 122 pictures and it was an all day meet.

 

 

The surprises (the good ones)

 

-It was really nice to have a small camera esp. given that there was a huge crowd in the stands. Much easier to deal with. This was an indoor meet.

 

-The M9 was fine at ISO1000—no complaints at all about the output. I should venture into ISO 1000 more often.

 

-Action shots (e.g., start dives) were captured crisply and manual focusing to get the shots was easier than I expected (I was afraid I wouldn’t be able to focus fast enough to catch the action).

 

-I didn’t miss the fast frame rate of the D700 and I was sure that I would. My usual approach is to shoot continuously during dives, then keep whichever picture works best. With the M9 I pre-focused, and took one shot at the moment I wanted to capture (see my earlier point about number of pictures shot). Dive shots with the M9 look at least as crisp, if not better in some cases, to the ones that I shot the weekend before with the D700.

 

The less-good surprise

-White balance wasn’t consistent shot to shot. It was easy to fix in Lightroom after the fact (I just took the settings off of one that worked and sync’d with the rest), but I’m still puzzled by the inconsistency. Some shots were perfect, others were really yellow.

 

 

Obviously I didn’t get as many close-in shots with a 90mm lens as I do with a 200 on the D700, but really, these swim meets don’t generate pictures that I’m going to frame. It’s more about capturing the event for the grandparents who can’t be there in-person and having pictures for the kids to see their progress from one meet to the next. So my goal is really good snapshots and not pro-level shots that could land on a Sports Illustrated cover.

 

Since getting the M9 I’ve been wondering whether I could live with it as my only digital camera (I shoot M6s for film). For portrait work I’ve proven to myself that I can do what I want to do with the Ms. Sports are tougher though. And while I did fine at a swim meet, I recognize that it’s a situation that is very repeatable; the swimmers always start in the same place and swim in straight lines (usually :-)

 

I admit that I'd love to ditch the giant DSLR kit (hmm, then maybe I could afford that MP I've been wanting :-) Just not sure that I wouldn't regret the decision. I do wonder how well this setup would work for something less predictable like a soccer or volleyball game. Anyone tried that? If so, what sort of results did you get?

 

 

 

Karen

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

I think taking pictures of children at a swim meet will get you arrested here in the UK, such is the paranoia prevalent in our society.

[Guest]

I think taking pictures of children at a swim meet will get you arrested here in the UK, such is the paranoia prevalent in our society.

 

The real danger is to use a film compact camera and have the film processed at say Boots. Arrest almost certain.It is a sad country PC has created.

BrianP:eek:

[KCS]

Wow, didn't even think about that. Where I live in the US kid sporting events always include parents with DSLRs, point and shoot cameras, and lots of video cameras.

 

Karen

[k-hawinkler]

Wow, didn't even think about that. Where I live in the US kid sporting events always include parents with DSLRs, point and shoot cameras, and lots of video cameras.

 

Karen

 

... as they (kid sporting events) should!

 

K-H.

[marknorton]

Of course, and the presumption here that every male is a likely paedophile who needs to be vetted before they can have any contact with children simply puts people off volunteer work. I was contemplating getting involved (now that I'm retired) teaching kids electronics until I found out the vetting process I needed to go through, forget it.

 

As for the original post, good the M9 worked in this environment. The M is generally said to be poor at sports where the issue is more focussing on moving objects, not speed of focussing per se. I enjoy photographing motorsports and the M is difficult compared to, say, a Nikon D3 and 70-200.

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Karen, I am pleased to read that you took the step to try the M9 at a swim meet. The only thing it will fall short on is long lens stuff which you obviously know already.

 

I have shot the M9 (or was it the M8, can't remember!) at a soccer meet for school kids. It was fine. I shot mainly the 135 TE, but also the 75 Cron. No problem at all. Sure, I could move discreetly onto the field a bit, which helped the 'reach' of the lenses.

 

I also recently shot the M9 in Antarctica 'against' a Nikon and a Canon kit and it performed admirably. The Nikon Pro (well known wild life photographer) actually asked permission to use one of my M9 pics on his website!

 

Interpolating all experiences and observations, my opinion arrives at the conclusion that the primary variable is the photographer, not the gear. Not an original theory, I know, but still valid. So crank up your M9, hone your skills and be brilliant.

[scottygraham]

Erl...you have me dying to know....who was the well known wild-life photographer, and can we see the photo that he asked to put on his website?

[kkochheiser]

As for the original post, good the M9 worked in this environment. The M is generally said to be poor at sports where the issue is more focussing on moving objects, not speed of focussing per se. I enjoy photographing motorsports and the M is difficult compared to, say, a Nikon D3 and 70-200.

 

While I agree with you about the D3 being easier for motorsport (much) in my experience, I have just been going through some of my books by Louis Klementaski and Jesse Alexander and they sure achieved great results with Leicas in the '50s and '60s! Of course they could get much closer to the action then.

[marknorton]

It's not just focussing of course and where the M9 also performs well is on release delay; you can judge the release moment perfectly with no perceptable lag where you can be caught out with a DSLR if you have it set to release only when the camera thinks something is in focus.

 

Both are streets ahead of the Digilux 2 which really is a sluggish old thing and completely unsuited to capturing that action moment.

[jaapv]

The Digilux2 is fast enough - if you switch off AF. That is the bottleneck.

[KCS]

I've always found AF frustrating. I can get a reasonable number of good pics, but also a lot that are not in focus. I'm really liking the fact that with the M9 I'm generally taking fewer pictures (which means less time spent sorting through them on the computer).

 

Karen

[rennsport]

Since getting the M9 I’ve been wondering whether I could live with it as my only digital camera (I shoot M6s for film). For portrait work I’ve proven to myself that I can do what I want to do with the Ms. Sports are tougher though. And while I did fine at a swim meet, I recognize that it’s a situation that is very repeatable; the swimmers always start in the same place and swim in straight lines (usually :-)

 

I admit that I'd love to ditch the giant DSLR kit (hmm, then maybe I could afford that MP I've been wanting :-) Just not sure that I wouldn't regret the decision. I do wonder how well this setup would work for something less predictable like a soccer or volleyball game. Anyone tried that? If so, what sort of results did you get?

 

Karen

 

I'm quite new to rangefinder but not to photography. M9 is my first RF and I must tell you that I do not regret leaving my DSLR behind at all. Like you, I've taken fewer shots with the M9 than I would with a DSLR, but I ended up with much better pictures, imho.

 

I've photographed my kids swimming at home with their cousins recently. It must have been around 30-40 shots but I'm far happier with the images than the ones I'd taken earlier with my DSLR (must have been more than 50 shots). Last week, I brought my M9 (+ the Noct) along to my friend's wedding to shoot a few snaps. (I was a guest, not the wedding photog.) I shot 75 pictures and I ended up with some 20+ pictures that I'm really pleased with. I used to think that with the relatively long focus throw of the Noct, it would be difficult to use. That turned out to be much less relevant.

 

I've had my M9 for four months now and I don't miss my D700 one bit! I still have the D700 but have sold all my main lenses. I don't think I will need the D700 any more! LOL. I can bring my M9 just about anywhere, but I would think twice about bringing the D700 along wherever I go.

 

So my final thought is that if you're already comfortable shooting the M9, just forget the DSLR and concentrate on optimizing your shots with the M9.

[cheewai_m6]

i found that m cameras work decently well at sporting events. i was at the australian grand prix in march. i had a d90 with 80-200 on me. and i had my m6 with a 50 cron. i was standing at turn 5 and quite close to the track, the 80mm on a cropped sensor was too long for where i was so i used the m6 (superier 200 1/250 @ F2). i only had 5 frames left and turn 5 is fairly fast corner. i couldn't see up the track because of the way spectators were standing and stands around the track etc. i only had 0.5sec to find the car, then another half second to frame, follow and shoot. impossible with the dslr.

 

i pre-focussed, and cause the viewfinder i could see around the frame, i spotted the car before it was in frame, followed the car, composed and shot at the moment i wanted. out of 5 shots, 3 had the car sharp with a blurred background, and composed well. i knew when i had the shot, and knew when i missed it cause i could see the car when the shutter released. i'm not saying an M camera can out-do a D3, but it's not bad. i know on the d90 i couldn't keep 3 out of 5 shots.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I shoot basketball and judo with the M8 and now M9. Since the lighting in school gyms is generally abysmal, the quality that the M9 delivers at ISO 1000 is a big help. I tend to use focal lengths of 50 and less, and get as close to the action as possible. Once you get familiar with each sport and know what sort of moments you are looking for, things should fall into place, even if gym sports are not as predictable as diving competitions. There was even a forum member who showed some glorious college basketball shots a few years back, done with a Noctilux on an M8, shot from close to the basket. He used follow-focus!

 

scott