M8 and sports?

[coachjpg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I need to upgrade my gear. The attached photo is the best I can do with my current P&S. You can see why I'm frustrated. That photo also illustrates the photographic challenges I face that make me wonder if the M8 is the right camera for me.

 

I learned back in the stone ages, on a Pentax K1000. The only electronics were in the TTL exposure meter. My teacher used a Leica range finder. He let me try it a few times, and I decided back then that that was the camera for me when I graduated to serious equipment. Once I'd tried the Leica, the CLACK of that SLR mirror flopping around just seemed huge and unnecessary.

 

I'm comfortable with manual controls. I find autofocus infuriating. For me, it's either too slow or it focuses on the wrong thing, or both. I read tutorials on sports photography that talk about pre-focusing the auto-focus camera on the places where you expect the action to happen. Heck, I can do that by hand. I'm reasonably coordinated and mechanically inclined, and I'm willing to put in the time to learn to master my equipment.

 

So I'm here to ask the experts. Is there a way to shoot sports with an M8, or am I setting myself up for failure? Does anyone shoot sports with the M8, perhaps with a visioflex and zoom R glass?

 

I like the size of the M8. It's clearly ideal for most of the photography I do, with the possible exceptions of sports and nature. The digital R is just too bulky to fit into my lifestyle. Do I really need 2 different cameras? I'm trying to simplify my life. I'd rather master one tool, but only if it can do all the jobs I need done. Sports is one of those jobs.

 

Thanks!

coachjpg

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

For me, sports, nature and macro beyond 3:1 are not the natural habitat of the Leica.

 

As for your dislike of autofocus, that may be because you've never used a decent camera with it - if, for example, you use a D2X you can get it to lock on to a moving target, even when that target moves behind something closer and focus contiunously on the object you're following.

[hdrmd]

I agree that the rangefinder is not the best sports camera, however it can be used. It takes the right situation. In horse racing it is fairly easy to know the distance, use an appropriate f stop, and pan. The results can be good. DR

[ddp]

For shooting sports like lacrosse, field hockey, etc - I would go with a DSLR personally and invest in some decent long glass for the job at hand. Of course you could go manual focus with the teles - I believe we have one sports shooter here - Robert Stevens who has demonstrated again and again what can be done doing things the old school way. But modern telephotos with the ultrasonic motors are extremely fast focusing lenses. I know for some of the motorsports I shoot, a rangefinder is great in the pits but lacking on the track. A 300 2.8 works great for this type of stuff, and the digital focal factor on the Nikon's even provides more reach.

[fotografr]

Dan's advice is good. For most sports shooting, the rangefinder has two distinct disadvantages: 1) The available lenses aren't long enough. 2) It is too difficult to rapidly follow focus fast moving action with a rangefinder.

[wparsonsgisnet]

John,

 

Welcome to the Forum.

 

If you plan to shoot sports a lot, then a Canon with an autofocus lens is the easiest answer.

 

I shoot other subjects primarily, however, I have successfully shot some sports with the M8. I didn't do well the first time and applied the lessons of that experience to the second attempt.

 

I was shooting an indoor soccer match, a pretty fast sport, without the advantage of skylight illumination. The first time, I shot from next to the goal -- BAD idea. All the action was toward and away, giving me a focusing problem from hell.

 

The second time, I stood at mid-sideline and got about 2/3's of the shots. I was shooting at 1/250 and iso 640. This was necessitated by the incandescant down-lilghting from the gym ceiling. Use a monopod!!

 

You will be outdoors, if your image is any indication. That'll give you so much more light that you can shoot at lower iso and / or higher shutter speed.

 

Congratulations on your instinct to purchase a Leica.

 

The Lenses are magnificent. The M8 is a wonderful instrument. However, before you drop 8 or 10 k on an M8, a couple of lenses, and IR-cut filters, how 'bout you rent a film Leica from your local dealer for the sports shoot.

 

I would suggest a lens at about 35mm or a pair at 28 and 50 for your trial. You can see how the focusing goes, and how many shots come out ok. These are shot with a 24 or a 35 (which turns out to be a 32 and a 47 on the M8).

 

You won't be filling your frame, but the widere lenses are more forgiving of focus accuracy. Try some iso 400 film. and see what you get.

 

While you have the rental, you can also see how you like what you photograph of different subjects.

 

These M's are fabulous. I'm attaching shots from the (second) soccer game.

 

The last is the one I wish were focused nearer -- and illustrates the focusing problem. I was focused on the player at the rear, red shirt, black hair.

[Guest sirvine]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is with some hesitation that I link you to this thread, as it will most likely cause you to buy an M8 despite the fact that a DSLR is more suitable for sports shooting....

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/sports-leisure-time/18541-basketball-noctilux.html

 

And the gallery that Robert posted... Gallery

[Guest Olof]

Personally i think the M8 would be usefull for the Minigolf sport....

 

No really, if i saw which pictures you want to take, you should go for a Autofocus System.

[coachjpg]

Robert produced amazing images with an M8/Nocti from behind the basket. Bill had his best results from midcourt, and he found behind the basket to be an unproductive location. Diversity is alive and well!

 

Unfortunately, the sports that loom large in my life involve much greater distances than basketball: football, soccer, lacrosse, and swimming. I only rarely get to take shots from basketball-court distances. The shot I posted above arose when the player ran down the sideline right in front of me, a fairly rare occurrence.

 

Sports is only a fraction of what I'd like to photograph, but it is an important fraction. I had hoped I could rig an M8 for occasional sports work, and to primarily use it for portrait/landscape. I'd read about folks using longer lenses with the M8 and a visioflex, and I thought perhaps that might be an option. But the only M8 sports success stories I'm hearing about use short lenses.

 

I suppose there's a reason you see mostly Cannon lenses on the sidelines... AF/IS/SLR is *so* not where I want to go... M8 + Visioflex + 70-180 vario R + 2x extender would get me the purely mechanical solution I was hoping for, but by the time I've bolted all that together on a monopod... Well I've certainly lost the M's size advantage. Maybe a Cannon solution would make more sense.

 

Thanks for taking the time to educate me. I appreciate the help.

 

coachjpg

[Hans Roggen]

Really, if you want to shoot sports, go for a SLR. Period.

Don't get me wrong, i love my M8, but there are different tools for different jobs, and a rangefinder is not the right tool for sports. Surely you can drive a nail in with a pipe wrench, but it's easier with a hammer.

And yes, i do get tired every now and then of dragging along a 300mm and a 400mm, a monopod and one or two camera's, but i have never been tempted to leave it all home and go to a soccermatch with my M8. It is not the right tool. I would have missed this and other pictures last week.

 

Hans

[Guest sirvine]

Also, imagine a lacrosse ball hitting an M8 and Noctilux! Put the armored-up D200 in this line of fire.

[wparsonsgisnet]

John, it's hard to beat the Canon with autofocus lenses for sports. Surely you've noticed the homeless camps with all the long, white, kilobuck, autofocus lenses in the corners of sporting floors.

 

If you can't get close, a rangefinder isn't going to do it.

 

One photographer of note (sorry, forget the name) has been photographing the Boston Symphony Orchestra for decades, using a Leica and Visoflex with long lenses. However, I don't think the tuba player is moving as fast as the basketball forward.

 

I have a friend who took a Leica M8 loaner to the Antarctic some weeks ago. Before he got the loaner he asked to meet so he could see the M8. He was blown away by the images from these lenses and was positively drooling. His wife was with him and even she was into a new acquisition like this.

 

After the Antarctic trip was over, he returned all the stuff and went back to shooting sports with his Canon rigs. He did regret giving up the M8 (and 50 and new 28), but couldn't justify spending the dough when he photographs sports most of the time.

 

Other than that ....

[robsteve]

Here is some football just to show it can be done with a Leica Digital. All it takes is a little hand/eye coodination. DMR and 400mm.

 

I wouldn't suggest a M8 for sports unless you can get really close and zone focus.