Why Not M6TTL + 90mm for Sports?

[DeanSilliman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So my daughter is starting soccer. I took out the old Nikon D70 and 18-200 VR to shoot her first practice yesterday but I just have no interest in the DSL since acquiring an M6TTL a while back. People knock Ms as being terrible for sports and action and I’ve been thinking about it ….

 

Why wouldn’t the M6TTL loaded with 400 speed film and mounting a 90mm Elmarit 2.8 work well? I’d be shooting stopped down but in broad daylight with 400 speed film, still allowing both fast shutter speeds and a forgiving depth of field. It appears that hyperfocal distance would be about 25 feet, so with me on the sideline a lot would be at preset focus and it should be little problem to adjust for the rest within the broader DOF. (To help, I have the .85 VF and could get a magnifier.) Also, lighting, and therefore exposure, would be virtually constant. What am I missing?

 

Dean

[elmarman]

I tried my Leica for sports and it was very difficult using a rangefinder as I kept trying to get 'perfect focus' using the rangefinder image, and not knowing which way to twist the lens to focus on the moving soccer players-- it was much easier using my Pentax ME Super with its bright screen and I could follow focus and I had longer lenses than 90mm as well.

[ismon]

The "secret" is first to observe the flow of action. Don't try to to focus on the action as it happens. You'll go nuts and go home frustrated. Instead, anticipate the action. Focus on a spot on the field where the players are heading. The M-camera is ideal for this, as you can see the subject outside the frame. Compose the photo in your mind. When it hits your pre-focused spot--wham, you got it. I prefer as slow a film as weather would permit, and shoot at F/2.8 or F/4 to isolate the subject from the distracting backround.

[budrichard]

I've shot soccer with both my M6 and M7's both 0.85 finders with 90mm Summicorn ASPH and Motor M's. The DOF of the 90mm stopped down doesn't give you anything, you still need precise focusing. The advice of watching the flow and pre-focusing on areas is spot on. Even with a motor, it is very difficult to follow action like soccer with an M.

Try it.-Dick

[gyoung]

The "secret" is first to observe the flow of action. Don't try to to focus on the action as it happens. You'll go nuts and go home frustrated. Instead, anticipate the action. Focus on a spot on the field where the players are heading. The M-camera is ideal for this, as you can see the subject outside the frame. Compose the photo in your mind. When it hits your pre-focused spot--wham, you got it. I prefer as slow a film as weather would permit, and shoot at F/2.8 or F/4 to isolate the subject from the distracting backround.

 

Which is the way we always used to do it before AF, I shot motor racing like that with a Pentax and pre set 135 in the 60s.

There have been some awe inspiring words of wisdom from Doug Herr on how photographs birds with the R etc, and why manual focus is better than AF even for that, try a search for that.

I have just fitted a Beattie screen with split image to a Nikon F90 and turned off the AF, probably for ever Also trying out such things on an M3 with Visoflex II and 200.

Masochism perhaps but it keeps me amused:rolleyes:

 

Gerry

[msweeney]

I guess that's why you don't see Sports Illustrated shooters using M's for their work... hehehe. It's not what they were really made for, but you can do it. In most of the Leica literature you'll see maybe one reference to sports pictures, such as this page from a Leica M6 brochure I saved years ago:

 

 

For years the only sports picture you ever saw was this one below. It came from the M6 manual, but I think it must have been shot with an M3 or something!

 

 

Cheers, Mike

[mgcd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When shooting sports especially team sports, a 280 or a 280+1.4 apo extender is the minimum optical rig... Then again I'm referring to shooting for publication in newspapers and magazines. I'm not brave enough to use an M camera to do this...

 

Cheers

[rulnacco]

Just the very title of this thread caused me to shudder, lol. I shoot lots of sports of various sorts, and the idea of doing it with other than a DSLR gives me the heebie jeebies.*

 

Last night I shot pro boxing in a well-lighted venue (it was televised, so we got plenty of help from Sky Sports' lighting rig). After the main event, just for a thrill, I pulled my M3 and 50 Summicron out of the bag to shoot a double-debut 4-rounder.*

 

Believe me, that gave me even more respect for the guys who might have done that sort of thing decades ago. I started shooting boxing 7 years ago with a Nikon F4. That was difficult, but doable. I also used it to shoot US high school football and various other sports. It worked okay, but things are sooo much better since I went digital.*

 

I found the M3, even with its legendarily great viewfinder, to be all but unusable for the action in the ring. Way too slow and uncertain to focus, hurts composition as you have to use the centre of the frame to focus (focus & recompose is *not* an option in boxing!), can't fire off rapid sequences of frames.

 

One thing I've noted is that many of the classic boxing action shots are, from a modern standpoint, technically rubbish. Several of the more famous action shots I would discard routinely today. That's not because I'm better than all those old masters - I'm just fortunate to work with far more efficient tools than they did.

 

While you can spot focus in soccer/football and wait for the action you've anticipated to arrive - I use that technique all the time in those and other sports - I'd find the 90 far too short for anything but shots in the near vicinity.**

 

I love my M3. But just as I loved my mom, I still wouldn't have invited her along to a hip hop gig, I'm not gonna bring my darling to some sporting event she's not suited for. I'm gonna use the right tool for the job.*

 

Feel free to try out your M if you wish. But I think you'll find out why all those super talented pros who shoot for Sports Illustrated and the like would be aghast at the idea of attempting a similar experiment.*

 

Cheers!

[bill]

Why not give it a try...?

 

Both of these were shot with an M - the first with an M6, the second with an M7. I used a 90mm for the second shot, I can't remember exactly but I think the first was a 135.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[ndjambrose]

A lot depends on what kind of sport and how close you are to the action.

 

The biggest problem is nothing to do with speed. It's to do with the accuracy of a rangefinder at longer distances. I once tried something very similar - M7, 90mm - to photograph a cricket match. My shots were all perfectly crisp - people caught nicely in mid-stroke, etc - but a large number were out of focus. What I found was that beyond a certain distance there is an a wide margin of error in focusing - as much as 20 meters - even when stopped down to mid apertures. I'd be focusing on the batsman and find when the picture was enlarged that the sharpest focus was on slip fielders.

 

The rangefinder principle has diminshing accuracy unless the base length is adequately long. And with an M, the base length seems to be accurate only within relatively short distances.

 

So, if you're photographing a close up sport you'll be fine. But if you're looking at a field sport where you'll be at a considerable distance your DSLR with telephoto and AF will probably be more use.

[batmobile]

In close 'zone action' with a M and a medium or wide lens is one thing, but football from the sidellines is another altogether. Use the SLR if you want to retain your sanity.

[rulnacco]

Well, after complaining about how hard it was to shoot pro boxing with an M, I found I did get one halfway decent shot on the single roll I put through the camera. This was with Delta 3200, scanned on my Epson V750.

 

However: this was shot with a 50 rather than a 90, which lens I think would be much harder to manage in a fast-moving setting, for reasons some other posters have outlined above. And my digital shots were much better than this overall...Boxing News ran 'em, so they must have been all right.

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!

[kivis]

With my M7 0.85, prefocusing with the 90 works pretty well, at least for baseball.