Shooting sports with a rangefinder

A

Archiver

Veteran
Local time
11:54 PM
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
2,892
Last week, I was able to shoot a sports team training indoors. I have to say that trying to shoot them with a rangefinder was not fun. Because I usually shoot wide open or close to it, trying to focus on fast moving bodies was difficult. I tried stopping down, but ran into ISO limitations with my M9, especially when trying to freeze action. The best I could do was f2.8 at 1/500 shutter speed, and limiting the ISO so I could push the images in post.

I did get some keepers, but the experience was frustrating and left me wanting a blazing autofocus camera like a Sony A9 or Canon 1DX II. My GH4 shot a fair few images with my Voigtlander lenses on high speed burst, but these images lack that special sauce that I get with the M9, or even the Ricoh GXR-M.

So how do you guys do it? Are there any helpful ideas for shooting sports with a rangefinder? I know it's not optimal, but it's the best I've got for now.
 
I have shot lots of motion indoors, ballet, dance, weddings, sports and rodeos.
My film speed was max. 400 ISO.
My fastest lens was 50mm Collapsible-Summicron on an M3, no meter..
Pick a moment when the motion at peak!
So sad there was no possibility of full aperture Noctilux, where everything out of focus,
no ISO going into 500,000, no auto focus doing misfocussing..
I am now a clod with my Medium Format, yet it was Main Studio machine..
Photography requires discipline not fancy, esoteric high priced equipment.
Learn from your mistakes and do it again..
 
Last edited:
Horses for courses. There’s a reason why pros at the Olympics are all using DSLRs. Autofocus, the capability to freeze motion and also achieve subject isolation, and the ability to use extremely long telephotos, these all live in the SLR province.
It’s possible to use a rangefinder for closeup candids of sweaty people in team jerseys, but that’s not what people usually mean when they say “sports photography”. It’s also possible to get excellent results for one specific type of action shot with a rangefinder, shots where you prefocus on an area where you know action will occur and just wait for the action to get there, then snap the shutter, areas like the finish line, or the crossbar at the pole vault pit. But, in general, rangefinders are the wrong tool for the job. Sports and BIF (birds in flight) photography want a different camera type, and lenses.
 
Back in the "only film" days, I shot high-school football on Friday night with a Rolleiflex & electronic flash. I was happy with one usable shot per roll. Sometimes, if it wasn't for cheerleaders, I got nothing, but it all worked out, and the newspaper was printed regardless.
 
Successful action photography with a RF is certainly possible. It is even possible using film.

It is just much more difficult compared to cameras and lenses action photography pros use for this job. It requires a lot of practice and accepting certain fundamental limitations.

For instance, taking a burst of a dozen images with AF working between each shutter actuation greatly increases the odds of success (making an interesting photograph).

Don't listen to anyone who claims AF is unreliable for action work. An ancient D300 with a decent AF lens can deliver an impressive in-focus success rate. Of course, one has to know how to choose AF menu parameters that optimize action photography performance. It would be easy to fail spectacularly if one didn't invest the time to understand how the AF system works.

Current sensor technologies with very high signal-to-noise ratios also make action photography easier. Action photography with a M10 will be much easier compared to using a M8.

JPEG quality is so high it is common for people to make a living by wirelessly delivering JPEGs in real time during sporting events. Those sports photographs are published on line before the game is over.

Larry Cloetta makes an excellent point about using a RF for candid close ups. I have used a RF to get candids of fans reactions. However a DSLR would also get that job done. There's a reason sports photographers carry several bodies during a gig.
 
Out to Lunch said:
I'd like to see some pictures. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Click to expand...


skate2.jpg


Mamiya 7 80/4 - TriX



skate1.jpg

Mamiya 7 80/4 - Ilford Pan F 50 +


skate3.jpg
Mamiya 7 80/4 - TriX
 
Shooting indoors is the limiting factor it sounds like for your situation if you wanted to use a RFer. If you were outside at a track meet you can access more events and prefocus on where the action will happen and snap away. I did this back when my kids where in MS and HS and occasionally I took along a RFer for the fun of it. I used a Nikkor LTM 135mm lens and Leica M3. But I also had a Nikon D200/300/700/D1h/D2h?D2hs over the years and usually used the 80-200 AFS lens. That was a primary setup for most of the years they did sports. For many photographers shooting erratic moving targets is difficult enough with a (d)slr and fast AFing lens.
 
A number of years ago I was teaching a class in sports photography. I had a number of students who were complaining that they couldn't get good shots because they didn't have the latest and greatest DSLR with high speed autofocus and f2.8 lenses. So I picked up an Argus C3 "Brick" off of eBay for $20 and went out and shot a high school basketball game.

ArgusC3.jpg

Argus C3 w/Tri-X

ArgusC3a.jpg

Argus C3 w/Tri-X

ArgusC3b.jpg

Argus C3 w/Tri-X

While the images won't win any awards, they showed the students that you don't need the latest and greatest to cover sports.

Best,
-Tim
 
I've shot basketball with the M9 and a 50. Works well. Picking the peak of the action is accurate with RF.

Here's one with MF: slow kit. 80mm lens.

med_U28906I1566832297.SEQ.0.jpg
 
You can do it in some instances. As has been pointed out, it works best for sports where you can predetermine where the action will occur - under the basketball net, on the sideline close to the soccer or hockey goal, on a curve, at the handoff for relays, or the finish line for track. Trying to do football with a rangefinder is problematic and if you're getting the players close enough to use a 50 or a 35, you're putting yourself and your camera at serious risk. I, too, have shot sports with a Rollei, also with a Koni-Omega and my first 35 SLR, a Konica TC. Would I go back to that? No, I would not. It can be done with manual focus film SLRs, autofocus film or digital, but if the results matter more than the system, I would not use a rangefinder. [And I do shoot much of my personal work with film rangefinders].
 
I have to agree the issue is more indoors vs outdoors and what aspects do you look for in a great photo.

Huss, thanks for sharing the link, makes me think more and more about the next step in my photographic journey.

B2 (;->
 
DanskDynamit said:
you can have the slowest camera in the world and still take great photos. its not about the camera or the lens or indoor v outdoor, it's all about working out with the gear you have and your skills. All the rest are excuses.

https://petapixel.com/2013/02/08/david-burnetts-speed-graphic-photos-of-the-london-2012-olympics/

https://www.davidburnett.com/gallery.html?gallery=London+2012+%2F+Olympics#/0
Click to expand...

I have to disagree about all the rest are excuses. I would submit that it's about what type of picture you are looking for and its qualities. I would present a challenge to you to shoot in the locker room with the long lens that the photographer next to David Burnett is using.

Over the years in IT there's a saying about a three-legged stool. One leg represents Fast (duration). The next Low Costs (total cost of ownership).
The last represents High Quality (accuracy). You can only have two. There's a bit of the same in photography. My guess is that Tim pushed his Tri-X (1600 perhaps) because of the grain. If he used PlusX, I think his results would not be the same. They might be better, they might be worse, it's subjective.

B2 (;->
 
BillBingham2 said:
I have to disagree about all the rest are excuses. I would submit that it's about what type of picture you are looking for and it's qualities. I would present a challenge to you to shoot in the locker room with the long lens that the photographer next to David Burnett is using.
Click to expand...
thats ok, we dont have to agree at all.
There are no action sports in the locker and the fact that you have to twist my example to fit your statement shows that you agree with me.
:)


Problem is, when we accept that its not about the gear, photography forums die.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom