Shooting sports with a rangefinder

[Ko.Fe.]

Boxing is close to the street. Photographer walks and focus point could be at different distances on different time. It is changing. It has to be quick.
This is why I only deal with lenses which have focus tab. With practice and DoF, focusing is done without RF, but by quick positioning of the focus tab.
It takes time and practice. I used to use Cron Collapsible this way. With f5.6 withing all range, at f2 from three meters and to infinity.
But I prefer 35mm and to get close. If it is training, it could be close as described in OP.

 

[Archiver]

Not sure what lenses you have at your disposal, but perhaps use as wide a focal length as possible, to give yourself more depth of field to work with?

I've tried to shoot boxing from ringside with a 21mm and 28mm, and while I like the images, sometimes the action takes place on the other side of the ring, and the figures become part of the scenery rather than the main subjects, if that makes sense.

21-28 is great when the fighters are in the middle of the ring or close to you, but mainly for full body images, rather than shoulders-up images. I was aiming for shoulders-up images with the 50.

A good compromise might be 35; I will experiment next time I'm ringside, but it depends on the lighting. Some venues have really cool lighting over the ring, some gyms have the worst lighting ever, hahaha.

Here are a few images from bouts over the last year or so, all taken with the M9 and either the Summicron 50 or Nokton 35/1.2. The training images are NOT like this, as I wanted much closer, tighter images.

Summicron 50:

M9 - Fighters in Stone [explore 2018 07 30 #483] by Archiver, on Flickr

Nokton 35mm f1.2

M9 - Knockdown by Archiver, on Flickr

M9 - The Faceless by Archiver, on Flickr

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Shot this with a Leica iiig, Summicron 50, and Provia 100, because it was the camera I happened to have with me. Sat on the rail and waited. I like the shot, but rangefinders are not the way to go for "sports photography". Too limiting. Then again, if you are just at the venue to mainly watch the event, and not document it, and only have a rf with you, why not? It's fun trying to overcome limitations.

PS. And, the vf isn't "squinty".

What a great shot! Larry, did you give a copy of this to the young lady in the photograph?

Mike

 

[santino]

During the olympics in London there was a journalist who shot the entire event with an iPhone 4s.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jul/27/london-olympics-2012-smartphone

 

[DanskDynamit]

As Larry says you can be occasionally successful but who wants that.

from the thousands of photos taken by a pro in a gig, how many get published? how many keepers you get per roll? or memory card?
ALL success is occasional.

 

[Michael Markey]

from the thousands of photos taken by a pro in a gig, how many get published? how many keepers you get per roll? or memory card?
ALL success is occasional.

Of course it is …. hey I shot sports for years with a rangefinder.
All I`m saying is I found it frustrating and that there are easier and more effective ways of doing it with modern equipment.
They wouldn`t be my choice of equipment now , much as I love them .

 

[DanskDynamit]

Sorry to barge in on this conversation, but it is about the gear. You cannot get a good closeup of the quarterback handing the ball off with a 21mm Elmarit. First of all, they won't let you get close enough. Second, if they did, neither you nor the camera would fare well. True, you can get a sports photo with an Argus - shown above - or a box Brownie, but if you are sent to the event to get publishable photos of specific action, the gear does, indeed, matter.

I think you are mixing Pro with amateur/hobbyist photographer. No pro sports photog will be sent with a rangefinder camera because its not the right tool for this kind of photography. BUT, if you have a 21mm Elmarit, you will still manage to take photos, maybe more interesting than those boring zoomed sports photos we see every day. Dont forget many (if not all) sports photographers have a second body with a wide angle lens.
Google "wide angle sports photography" for beautiful shots taken with wide angle lenses.
As I said before, the rest are excuses.

 

[Archiver]

During the olympics in London there was a journalist who shot the entire event with an iPhone 4s.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2012/jul/27/london-olympics-2012-smartphone

Some of those images are great, some are more impressionistic than others. Interesting that he used Canon binoculars for the long distance images, and an unidentified Schneider lens.

 

[Michael Markey]

I know a few people who are still waiting for their occasion.😱

B2 (;->

Yep , I`m on that list 🙂

 

[DanskDynamit]

Of course it is …. hey I shot sports for years with a rangefinder.
All I`m saying is I found it frustrating and that there are easier and more effective ways of doing it with modern equipment.
They wouldn`t be my choice of equipment now , much as I love them .

I agree, of course it's easier to take photos with a DSLR with AF, but if you don't have one (I don't own any digital cameras nor lenses with AF) you can always take sports shots with a rangefinder. Its all about enjoying our hobby, if you are a pro photog then you will have to take the photos your boss want with the gear your boss will provide.

 

[Michael Markey]

I agree, of course it's easier to take photos with a DSLR with AF, but if you don't have one (I don't own any digital cameras nor lenses with AF) you can always take sports shots with a rangefinder. Its all about enjoying our hobby, if you are a pro photog then you will have to take the photos your boss want with the gear your boss will provide.

Totally agree and that`s the position I was in .
I think what changed for me was folk started to look forward to the shots (which was very nice) and I suddenly became aware that I was missing a lot of opportunities with the equipment I was using .

"Did you get a shot of me jumping …." well no I didn`t so I started down the route of using something which was more suitable /more reliable for the job.

Before that it was always my M3DS a CV40SC and K64 .
The choice of film alone was a challenge in the low UK winter light 🙂

 

[Archiver]

Totally agree and that`s the position I was in .
I think what changed for me was folk started to look forward to the shots (which was very nice) and I suddenly became aware that I was missing a lot of opportunities with the equipment I was using .

"Did you get a shot of me jumping …." well no I didn`t so I started down the route of using something which was more suitable /more reliable for the job.

Before that it was always my M3DS a CV40SC and K64 .
The choice of film alone was a challenge in the low UK winter light 🙂

Yeah, the missed opportunities bug me. Of course there will be a lot of hit and miss with fast moving action, even with modern systems, but today's tech should give a lot more keepers than a slow 'watch and shoot' method.

My most modern DSLR is the 5D Mark II from 2009, which I still wouldn't trust with this kind of work. I've tried it in gyms with poor light, and frankly, AF is awful. I'm better off shooting manually with my M9. In a brightly lit ring, maybe. But not in a lot of situations I would shoot in.

 

[dourbalistar]

Yeah, the missed opportunities bug me. Of course there will be a lot of hit and miss with fast moving action, even with modern systems, but today's tech should give a lot more keepers than a slow 'watch and shoot' method.

Well, if you're shooting boxing, no matter what camera you use there's bound to be a lot of hit and miss. 😉

 

[David Hughes]

Yeah, the missed opportunities bug me. Of course there will be a lot of hit and miss with fast moving action, even with modern systems, but today's tech should give a lot more keepers than a slow 'watch and shoot' method.

My most modern DSLR is the 5D Mark II from 2009, which I still wouldn't trust with this kind of work. I've tried it in gyms with poor light, and frankly, AF is awful. I'm better off shooting manually with my M9. In a brightly lit ring, maybe. But not in a lot of situations I would shoot in.

Hi,


If you want to turn out photo's like a pro sports photographer then you are going to have to gear up like one and get a bit more experience. But don't abandon the RF because it will be needed for a lot of other shots.


Regards, David


PS OR you could look at Dan Chung's photo's and just use a smartphone thing...

 

[citizen99]

Armed Forces Day, Thornbury, 30 June 2018 by John Hancock, on Flickr
Kodak Signet 35, Ektar 100. With a mechanical shutter you can know when it is going to 'fire'. Admittedly I had time to prepare the shot, and preparedness for the next one would not be of the fastest.
If I had taken this purely as a sports shot I would of course have cropped to the action.

 

[Archiver]

Hi,


If you want to turn out photo's like a pro sports photographer then you are going to have to gear up like one and get a bit more experience. But don't abandon the RF because it will be needed for a lot of other shots.


Regards, David


PS OR you could look at Dan Chung's photo's and just use a smartphone thing...

Oh, I'm never letting go of rangefinders for sports work, it's hella fun and I enjoy the results when I get them. I think of it like driving a manual racecar from the old days. As for pro sports results, my concession would be something like a Sony A7 III or A9.

 

[Michael Markey]

Yeah, the missed opportunities bug me. Of course there will be a lot of hit and miss with fast moving action, even with modern systems, but today's tech should give a lot more keepers than a slow 'watch and shoot' method.

My most modern DSLR is the 5D Mark II from 2009, which I still wouldn't trust with this kind of work. I've tried it in gyms with poor light, and frankly, AF is awful. I'm better off shooting manually with my M9. In a brightly lit ring, maybe. But not in a lot of situations I would shoot in.

Yes I made the mistake of buying a 5D2 and it was hopeless .
I bought a 5D3 and that was much better but still no match for the Sony A7R2 and the A7R2 isn`t considered very quick in Sony terms.

The accurate AF tracking gives me many more keepers though and I can still watch and shoot if I chose to..

It`s all about options for me .

 

[Archiver]

Yes I made the mistake of buying a 5D2 and it was hopeless .
I bought a 5D3 and that was much better but still no match for the Sony A7R2 and the A7R2 isn`t considered very quick in Sony terms.

The accurate AF tracking gives me many more keepers though and I can still watch and shoot if I chose to..

It`s all about options for me .

This is probably just my GAS talking, but I've had my eye on the Sony A system ever since it came out, and it's been getting better and better over the years. I've got a lot of Panasonic gear, but unless Pana release a somewhat smaller and lighter S model, I'm going with something like the A7 III which I can use for stills and video. I get what you mean about options.

 

[mcfingon]

Sometimes the RF limitation makes the result better. I like the way the window finder on my M6 makes it easy to track action, but didn't expect to get away with a 1/4 second shutter speed. I was backed into a corner by my 24/3.8 lens and ISO 100 film on a dull day, but ended up with a different and treasured shot of my son on his bicycle.

Leica M6 Elmar-M 24/3.8 at f4 1/4 second Delta 100 in Xtol
John Mc

 

[Larry Cloetta]

What a great shot! Larry, did you give a copy of this to the young lady in the photograph?

Mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks, and yes I did🙂