Indoor sport settings and lens SL2

[DrM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, 

I have a SL2, Sl35/75/24-90 setup and want to do some indoor sport photography (soccer, etc). Any settings you can recommend? (AF-s/Cs, face focus, shutterspeed fixed..?)

Also, usually there is not a lot of room to walk around, the zoom is nice but slower and 90 is on the short end at moments. Any recommendations? Crop? 90-280?, sigma lenses? Dunno where to start.

Best, 

Marc

[JimKnopf]

According to my feeling and my experience, the Leica Prime lenses are the slowest. Definitive.
This is followed by the Sigma lenses.
Leica 24-70
Leica 24-90, 90-280 & Panasonic L lenses

So in that order of speed.

Which AF settings are to be made is of course always very individual and depends on your working method.

AF and AE tracking only work up to 5 continuous shots per second. Above that, AF and AE are fixed to the first shot.

Definitely turn on the pre-auto focus.

Shutter speed and aperture depend on your desired image composition.

ISO depends on the desired brightness.

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

Interesting! I don’t do indoor sports but I do drama rehearsals and performance which are comparable in some aspects. I notice no difference in AF performance between the Summicrons and the zooms. Whether that is good enough is of course down to your expectations and requirements. I am using the SL2-S, with all three Leica zooms and the 35, 75 and 90 Summicrons, though I rarely use the wide zoom and 35 for this purpose. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[JimKnopf]

The difference relates purely to AF-C for fast-moving and direction-changing subjects.
And there is a difference - which even Leica employees themselves confirmed to me.

AF-S --> top! on point!
AF-C with Burstmode --> much out of focus in image series

Edited June 1, 2022 by JimKnopf

[JimKnopf]

You will probably get the most reliable results with a focus trap and a burst speed of 20.

[beewee]

It seems Fuji’s new X-H2S is doing something interesting for continuous AF.

Because the sensor has such a fast readout with the stacked sensor, it can grab additional scans in between burst shots and use them for AF. Meaning that if you’re shooting a slow-speed burst, for example 5fps, the X-H2S will continue to read off the sensor at almost 60 or 120 fps to capture additional frames for use with its AF algorithm.

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, beewee said:

It seems Fuji’s new X-H2S is doing something interesting for continuous AF.

Because the sensor has such a fast readout with the stacked sensor, it can grab additional scans in between burst shots and use them for AF. Meaning that if you’re shooting a slow-speed burst, for example 5fps, the X-H2S will continue to read off the sensor at almost 60 or 120 fps to capture additional frames for use with its AF algorithm.

Yes, but it is not full frame. 

it is easy in that way. Even the SL2 is much faster in focusing when in super 35, even in video

[laowai_]

I did a fair amount it indoor sports, mostly volleyball and basketball.
If I remember correctly I used a 85 mm f/1.2 and a 135 f/2.0 wide open, 1/250 s or faster, TMAX pushed to 1600 ASA or 3200 ASA or sometimes 6400 ASA, depending on the gym. For the important games the pros mounted their strobes in the ceiling, unfortunately never an option for me. In contrast to football where you can move around there sidelines, with indoor sports your are stuck wherever you choose to be. For midfield scenes the 85 mm is more like a wide angle lens. If you are trying to get a professional sports photography look and are in the bleaches you’ll need longer lenses.

The folks who had AF gear at this time usually switched the AF off and manually focused. If the players have a somewhat decent coach you kind of know where the action will be before it happens. You prefocus and manually fine-adjust.

Always admired the few pros who were able to make a living in this business for more than a season or two.

 

[JimKnopf]

but you have to say it clearly and honestly in 2022: working with manual focus and working with the principle of hope and happiness is stupid.
there are cheaper and better systems for this job. if it's a job.
Advantage: 90-280 can be used on the Sl2 with a crop factor. this is very possible with the sensor.

[Photoworks]

I remember that is most places indoor shoot would take 6400-25000 iso to freeze the fast moving subject.. 1/1000 to 1/4000's. even daylight shoots are often at 1600iso.

AF is possible, but just like @laowai_ said anticipate and predict it the name of the game. Many of the people I have looked up to still use back button focus.

You don't want the camera to hunt when the right moment comes, the SL2 does not well in low light focusing, if they are wearing black in addition to that... good luck.

The 90-280 is a big heavy lens, a monopod is required to keep you framed all the time. The lens is slow, and it only get slower when you zoom in.

If you doing soccer you will find the stadium to be brighter then basket what is a plus. But you would want a 400mm to start with, and a second camera with a shorter zoom by the gaol.

 

I use to be the photographer for a nation theater for ballet and opera. there is always a moment where the dancers are in sync to the completion of the pose.

In many sports the image would be when to ball touched the finger tips and the movement is in the most powerful moment.

To get real good shots this days I would use a more specialized camera that can do 20fps in electronic shutter and focus tracking.

I would suggest a Sony A9 or A1 or Nikon z9. You wand fast readout and no rolling shutter or banding in electronic shutter... indoor spaces don't have good lights for photography.

 

Now if you are doing just for you passion and family you just pick up what you have and try it.

if you don't get the crucial shot it is not big deal, I am sure you will get other photos that you can be happy with.

When you do it once you can determine what light you will have and how much more reach you will need. Faster lenses are always better.

Don't forget that many pros use 400-600mm lenses and still crop to 50%. Don't be afraid of cropping.

 

hope this helps.

 

look at some videos of a professional...

https://www.youtube.com/c/PMRTV/videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpzBAFfN5fQ

 

[BernardC]

6 hours ago, JimKnopf said:

but you have to say it clearly and honestly in 2022: working with manual focus and working with the principle of hope and happiness is stupid.
there are cheaper and better systems for this job. if it's a job.

There are two systems for sports in 2022. They are the same as in 1972 (and every year in between): Canon and Nikon. Sony has tried to buy their way into this market recently, as many others have in the past, but the big two have more specialized lenses, dedicated bodies, and better support. Those systems aren't cheaper by any measure. Try pricing-out a 600/4.0, it's significantly more expensive than any L-Mount lens, and the bodies are more expensive than Leica's L-mount cameras.

Amateur photographers can get very good results with non-specialized equipment, just like amateur plumbers can change a faucet without investing $50,000 in a fully stocked van and tools. That was the original question.

 

[JimKnopf]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb BernardC:

There are two systems for sports in 2022. They are the same as in 1972 (and every year in between): Canon and Nikon. Sony has tried to buy their way into this market recently, as many others have in the past, but the big two have more specialized lenses, dedicated bodies, and better support. Those systems aren't cheaper by any measure. Try pricing-out a 600/4.0, it's significantly more expensive than any L-Mount lens, and the bodies are more expensive than Leica's L-mount cameras.

Amateur photographers can get very good results with non-specialized equipment, just like amateur plumbers can change a faucet without investing $50,000 in a fully stocked van and tools. That was the original question.

 

no, this comparison is not correct.

i compare the technical possibilities and available focal lengths of the systems. I don't need $14,000 professional lenses.
with leica it ends with 280mm or with sigma l mount with 600mm and I get this focal length with a mentioned Sony and Sigma lenses really cheaper - especially since these systems are in 2022. Even the non-high-end models -cheaper- deliver comfortable performance .

[Manicouagan1]

Indoor sports shooting (for me basketball and volleyball) places heavy demands on the weakest areas of the Leica SL2 system and lenses.  The light in gyms  is dim, the action is fast,  multiple players are generally in the field of view, and backgrounds are busy.  Plenty of the film sports images were shot using Tri-X or in my case Kodak Portra 800. Sharply focused images were hard to get with film .   Now I shoot at no less than ISO 1600 and most 3200-6400.   Almost all my shots are done in bursts of about 5 frames with a 70-200mm zoom wide open a f2.8, the remainder using a 24-70imm zoom at f2.8.   

If your serious about shooting indoor sports, you probably can get a bargain on a used Canon 1Dx II or Nikon D5 and the brand's current  DSLR 70-200mm f2.8 lens (state of the art a year ago).  

[BernardC]

2 hours ago, JimKnopf said:

with leica it ends with 280mm or with sigma l mount with 600mm and I get this focal length with a mentioned Sony and Sigma lenses really cheaper

I'm not sure why you make a distinction between Leica L-Mount lenses and Sigma L-Mount lenses. They are native lenses for our cameras. I see it as a benefit that you can buy lenses from Sigma (or Panasonic) that aren't available from Leica, and vice versa. It's all one system. 

One other advantage is that you have access to a wider variety of camera bodies than you would from Canon/Nikon/Sony. Those systems consist of one "full featured" body, with cheaper options that omit certain features, but are otherwise similar. By comparison, the three L-Mount partners make very different cameras.

I'm not sure what you mean by "really cheaper." Sigma's lenses are priced the same for L-Mount as for Sony, and the cost of full-frame bodies is also similar. Sure, the SL2 is expensive, but so are high-end bodies from other manufacturers. On the cheaper end, the S5 is  within $100 of other entry-level full-frame mirrorless cameras (depending on current promotions). Maybe that's not the case in your local market?