piblondin Posted April 1, 2015 Share #1 Posted April 1, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would like to use my M more often for shooting sports, as I like the results I've gotten in the past. I'm even more inspired after seeing these brilliant photos, illustrating how one can capture the feeling of a match with the M: FA Cup with the Leica M 240 by Liam Shaw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Hi piblondin, Take a look here Football with the M 240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
w44neg Posted April 2, 2015 Share #2 Posted April 2, 2015 There's a couple amongst those I suppose, but why edit them like they're off Instagram with the cross processing? They're not brilliantly edited either with skin tones falling to bits due to shadows having been pulled up so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted April 2, 2015 Share #3 Posted April 2, 2015 The photos are more about the spectating experience than the action on the field. Which is something an M is very appropriate for capturing. But I'd rather bring a DSLR with a long tele and shoot the action on the field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
piblondin Posted April 3, 2015 Author Share #4 Posted April 3, 2015 There's a couple amongst those I suppose, but why edit them like they're off Instagram with the cross processing? They're not brilliantly edited either with skin tones falling to bits due to shadows having been pulled up so far. For me, I think they capture the atmosphere of the game well. Accurate colors or skin tones have never been a concern of mine--I'm more interested in the end result, which is the camera's/lens's/photographer's/post-processing's/film's interpretation of the scene and which has little to do with reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted April 3, 2015 Share #5 Posted April 3, 2015 You can of course, use an M for sports photography but then you could ride a bicycle up an interstate highway, but would you want to. If it is the only camera you have, then needs must but there are a lot better tools than an M for sports photography. Even though I took my Olympus EP-5 with me to India last year as well as M240 and M4, I did not at that time have any long AF lenses and was using an 80-200/f4 Vario-Elmar-R with both the EP-5 and M240 for taking animals and birds from moving vehicles and boats. My hit rate on perfect focus was not as high as I would have liked. I now have a 75-300 (150-600 EFOV) AF lens for the Olympus and get a near 100% hit rate with it, as it has extremely fast and accurate AF and the EP-5 has 5 axis image stabilisation. It is not as good for sports photography as one of the latest Sony/Nikon/Canon DSLR's would be but it is better than any of my Leica M's. I don't like AF for street, general and landscape photography but for sports, animals and birds, etc, I think it is the answer. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted April 3, 2015 Share #6 Posted April 3, 2015 For me, I think they capture the atmosphere of the game well. Accurate colors or skin tones have never been a concern of mine--I'm more interested in the end result, which is the camera's/lens's/photographer's/post-processing's/film's interpretation of the scene and which has little to do with reality. I think they do a good job of conveying the atmosphere and the experience of spectating at a lower-league game. Photographers can often find themselves thinking about at the photograph rather than the subject, and it's not unreasonable considering that photography is their interest, and also because a they (we) believe a "good" photograph can convey its subject more successfully than a poor photo. But there are many different ways in which a photo can be good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
w44neg Posted April 3, 2015 Share #7 Posted April 3, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) For me, I think they capture the atmosphere of the game well. Accurate colors or skin tones have never been a concern of mine--I'm more interested in the end result, which is the camera's/lens's/photographer's/post-processing's/film's interpretation of the scene and which has little to do with reality. I do agree there's a couple in there that are to my personal taste as I say, but the photos of the back of the sheds are a bit pointless. I personally think they needed to pick their five or so favourites and display those. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted April 3, 2015 Share #8 Posted April 3, 2015 If you are seeking a Leica solution, why not consider the new V-Lux? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satijntje Posted April 3, 2015 Share #9 Posted April 3, 2015 The new V-Lux Typ 114 is indeed an interesting Leica camera for sports. Have used it several times to shoot football of my kids, and results are good (although not M quality)! You may find second hand V-Lux for around 900 Euro. Give it a try and if you do not like it, sell it again for the same price! Good luck John Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/243049-football-with-the-m-240/?do=findComment&comment=2791969'>More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted April 3, 2015 Share #10 Posted April 3, 2015 Wow....like *no* real moments in faces, not very good in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted April 3, 2015 Share #11 Posted April 3, 2015 Wow....like *no* real moments in faces, not very good in my opinion. There's a lot more to the whole football experience than those real "moments", and I think this sequence, while very far from perfect, does a really good job of conveying the feeling of actually being there in the crowd at that sort of game. We all look for different things in life and photography, but I certainly don't expect or want photography to give the impression that the only things that matter in life are special moments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satijntje Posted April 3, 2015 Share #12 Posted April 3, 2015 Wow....like *no* real moments in faces, not very good in my opinion. This pic does indeed not show the faces of most of the kids:cool:, and this was my intention dear KM-25! Not all parens like their minis to be shown on the internet! Understood?? John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted April 3, 2015 Share #13 Posted April 3, 2015 Well, they aren't really football shots more a photo-documentary of a football ground. An SLR is a much better tool for the job if you want to actually take sports photos. As an aside, I found the linked set of photos rather sombre, they didn't catch the atmosphere of a typical football ground for me. They do have the rather have the feel of an outsider looking in, maybe that's the problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted April 3, 2015 Share #14 Posted April 3, 2015 I played soccer in school (uncommon for an American in those days) so it's the one sport I identify with, otherwise not much of a fan. But for the rare occasions I find myself at sports games (usually sitting in the nosebleed section of the bleachers) I have a very small (72mm filter) T-mount 500mm mirror lens in Leica R that I use on a Canon Rebel dslr, giving me an effective 750mm. Back when my kid was playing on sports teams (in the film days) I used Nikons. I found I did just as well with motor-driven F3's and manual 85 and 180 lenses, as later with an F5 and the same focal lengths with autofocus. But my goal was shooting the play action, not candids of the spectators. I never tried using my Leicas, mainly because I prefered the magnification of an SLR finder and being able to shoot at wider apertures and focus anywhere in the finder. I did use Leica at auto races though, and got good results. I believe that was because the subjects were moving in a predictable direction and speed, so it worked well to prefocus and pan to take the shot when the car hit the chosen mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted April 4, 2015 Share #15 Posted April 4, 2015 This pic does indeed not show the faces of most of the kids:cool:, and this was my intention dear KM-25! Not all parens like their minis to be shown on the internet! Understood?? John I was talking about the photographs linked in the first post, not the one above of which I have no comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted April 4, 2015 Share #16 Posted April 4, 2015 I don't recommend using the M240 for football. Damn thing could break a toe or knock you out. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted April 5, 2015 Share #17 Posted April 5, 2015 I would like to use my M more often for shooting sports, as I like the results I've gotten in the past. I'm even more inspired after seeing these brilliant photos, illustrating how one can capture the feeling of a match with the M: FA Cup with the Leica M 240 by Liam Shaw 't Zand -Sarto C7 - pauljoostenfotograaf like this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.