Rangefinder for moving people

[LovingMonochrome]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi folks,

Can anyone give me an hint, if the M is the right choice for taking pics of my kids. I have some doubts if the rangefinder will be the right choice for fast moving objects. 
Does anyone have some experience with it ?

[Sandokan]

It is the same way for any manual focus camera; focus where they are going to be or use a wide angle and zone focus. 

[Advertisement]

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

[MyLeicaWorld]

Get the lens 21 super elmar, shutter speed not less than 250; set iso to auto; and set the aperture F8, zone focus; then every moving thing gonna be in focus ..

[dugby]

Auto ISO, and shutter speed at least 1/250 or faster.

Aperature at least 5.6, preferably 8.

Leica’s technical data sheet for each lens has charts that show the “in-focus” zone for each aperature of that lens.

Set lens to a fixed focus distance that matches a midpoint in the focussed-distance range for your chosen aperature

 

After setting the above, your camera/lens combination becomes a point-n-shoot when your children are in the above focussed zone.

Edited June 6, 2023 by dugby

[jaapv]

A rangefinder is not the best choice if you want good results right away. Its use requires a learning curve especially for non-static subjects. 

[pgk]

5 hours ago, LovingMonochrome said:

Can anyone give me an hint, if the M is the right choice for taking pics of my kids.

Hint: NO! If you have to ask then its a no.

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

However... there are millions of photographs of moving children, sharp and in focus, taken before the invention of autofocus cameras.

It's a question of learning how to do it, knowing that you are at a huge advantage over your grandfathers who considered an ASA 50 film "medium speed".

[cboy]

Imo when settings are dialed in and you can anticipate the scene then a manual focus rangefinder can be as fast or faster than AF. Especially now when there's auto iso ceiling/floor,  highlight weighted metering helps substantially. However anything besides this, and if one is trying to achieve shallow DOF at close distances, with random subject movement, then it's no bueno. Yet there's others who love shooting wide open so there no rules.

This guy achieves both masterfully

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by cboy

[evikne]

It is challenging, but not impossible, to photograph moving objects with a RF. It's about finding the right technique and having an interest in learning. It's of course safer to stop down and use a large depth of field, you can even use zone focusing, but I think it can sometimes get a bit boring. I myself have tons of sharp shots of kids playing, taken at large apertures, even Noctilux shots at f/1.

[LocalHero1953]

I have used a rangefinder to photograph kids - it's not a problem once you get the muscle memory sorted. But then I rarely try to photograph kids when they are in unpredictable running around mode. I get my best photos when they are sitting playing, with interesting expressions, interacting with someone else (so static in relation to that person), on a swing, a slide or another piece of apparatus, where their location is predictable. And in fact my least interesting pictures are of them running around in the garden or park, because getting the composition right in a split second is difficult. The difficulty of photographing kids is overstated. IMO.

It was with manual focus but not with a rangefinder that I was asked by the leader of a "music and movement" group for small kids if I would photograph a couple of sessions for publicity purposes. I used the Leica SL and the Vario-Elmar-R 80-200, very successfully. I just got to know where the kids were likely to be facing me while running round, where they were likely to stop, and when they were likely to interact with either the leader or one of their mates. I had a high wastage rate, but that's one of the benefits of digital: zero marginal cost.

Edited June 6, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[LovingMonochrome]

Thanks for the many infos.

[Luke_Miller]

I sold my M4 because I could not get in-focus shots when my children were young and running around.  When my granddaughter got married I had no trouble with my M240 pulling focus on her as she walked towards me down the aisle.  So in my case it depends on what they are doing.  Walking towards me, no problem.  Moving quickly and erratically, problem.

[charlesphoto99]

Not a problem for me, but I've also had twenty years of practice under my belt with various RF's (Leica, Mamiya, etc) under my belt before having children. Piece of advice: think LOOSE. Too many want to exact perfect control over every situation instead of just going with the flow and taking the picture. Sometime's the focus will be off, but sometimes it won't matter. And you will have missed the shot being too hung up on 'perfect' focus. M's are about being loose and sloppy and making interesting, unique shots. If you need complete control then a dslr or mirrorless EVF is better for the unpracticed/uninitiated. 

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!

[pgk]

5 hours ago, andybarton said:

However... there are millions of photographs of moving children, sharp and in focus, taken before the invention of autofocus cameras.

Indeed, but I am positive that autofocus has upped the hit rate, dramatically. Having take photos of children in play areas for paying customers (the tourist attractions where the children were) I can categorically state that I would always choose an AF camera for such photography. And that is not to say that its not possible to take decent photos of children with Leica rangefinder but doing so is making life a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

The OP did ask whether the M is the right choice for taking [photos of] kids, and as far as I'm concerned the abswer is no, because there are better ways of doing so. Much as I like using my M cameras I have to be honest and say that they have limitations where other cameras are more feective.

[andybarton]

Agreed, but I was just pointing out that people were taking pictures of kids decades ago, and even with an M it's much easier now.

If I were in the business of taking pictures of kids running about, I wouldn't use a manual focus camera.

[charlesphoto99]

I can't post them here for privacy reasons, but I used to photograph a whole elementary school running in circles for their 'jog-a-thon' with a Leica M. It's not hard. One just needs to learn how to track focus. And keep in mind that the best pictures of kids aren't necessarily of them actually 'running about' but when they come to rest for a moment. My point is, too many people think the M is automatically exclusionary for some scenarios, when it isn't actually. It then comes down to a matter of comfort and practice. Personally, I would miss more shots with an AF camera than I would with an M as AF rarely focuses on what I want it to focus on. 

[earleygallery]

Think about sports photographers. Back in the days before autofocus was a thing there were still plenty of photos in the papers of fast moving sports (football, motorsports etc.).

It's all about technique. Yes, AF has made the task a lot easier.

[Kim Dahl]

I work as a photojournalist, including sports. Sometimes I wonder about  like "once upon a time in sports photos you could use manual focus..." etc.

It is true that I use a Leica M6 for handball. (in 1990 others used Nikon) They were printed in the newspaper.

If it wasn't quite sharp it couldn't be seen in the printed newspaper.

BUT THAT WAS before in 1980/90. The quality requirements for us photojournalists now are much higher than back then.
 

They are actually getting higher from year to year. As AF progresses.

Therefore, it is not possible for a camera brand to be 4-6 years behind the competition. If you want to sell to that audience. It's just the truth today.

The editor does not ask if you were lucky to get a sharp picture.;-)  It must be piv sharp.

So imagining that MF will work does not hold.
 

Yes, if it's for  own pleasure and don't care about the quality. So ok.
 

But we are in 2023...

Even as a Leica enthusiast I would say. The right tool for the right job.

[Segal]

14 hours ago, LovingMonochrome said:

Hi folks,

Can anyone give me an hint, if the M is the right choice for taking pics of my kids. I have some doubts if the rangefinder will be the right choice for fast moving objects. 
Does anyone have some experience with it ?

I have almost a thousand of pictures of my kids taken with M11, and while it's challenging, it's not that difficult. As people earlier in the thread suggested, focus on where they will be and snap many more pictures than you usually would.  I often shoot wide open, too. I get more keepers with this tactic than with Q2's slow autofocus.

I also own a Sony A1, and while its autofocus is fantastic, the camera and the lenses are too big for casual carry, so I rarely use it to take pictures of kids.

And this is the tradeoff - you either get a portable full-frame manual focus camera (M11), so it's there when the moment happens, but you might not capture it correctly. Or you get a bulky full-frame camera with autofocus (A1 or similar), and at some point, you stop carrying it with you every day, so you end up taking pictures with your phone anyway. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Sure. You can get great photos of kids. Some of my absolute favourites are from my old M9. At the time the M9 was my only camera and I used it a LOT. So I was really good at getting the shot. An M will reward practice and usage and punishes poor technique. In a world of AF that’s kind of the point of an M. A camera that challenges you to be better and to enjoy the rewards.

But there’s little doubt most AF systems are better for the job if a high hit rate is your goal. A Fuji XH5 with a 35mm is lighter and about the same size and will give you lovely images at an incredibly high hit rate. Ar an A7R4 with a nifty fifty isn’t larger than an M11 with the grip added and holds on like an angry dog.

So if every shot has to be sharp and wide open all the time then add a Fuji, Olympus, Canon or Sony to your kit. If you want the challenge. If you find limitations liberating. If you enjoy trading a lower hit rate for the satisfaction of being more in control the get an M.

Just remember more sharp photos doesn’t always mean *better* photos. OTOH using an M also doesn’t make photos great either. The most important photography tool is the one holding the camera.

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!

Shot with an M9 and CV 35mm 1.4MC

Gordon