Shooting sports with a rangefinder

Have shot high school sports with everything from an Agfa Super Isolette to my Leica MA. Daylight or nighttime, indoors or outdoors. You miss some and you get some.

If I were a pro I would use what the pros do. I'm not so I use what I want.

This one was done using the M-A and a Leica Tele Elmarit 90/2.8 using Delta 3200 as I was off the floor by a few rows.

I do have to say though, I am going to have to bust out the Crown Graphic and use it for a few shots as well. Looks like fun.

jump-shot.jpg
 
DanskDynamit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sports (along with wildlife photography) is one of those things where it is all about the gear.

Sure you can get a good shot at an amateur event when you pre-focus at a spot with a standard lens on a rangefinder.
However you're going to struggle if you try that at a professional game where the action is fluid and you're some distance away from the athletes
 
Re: choosing a rangefinder to be your weapon of choice for sports photography

As someone cautioned me years ago in another context, “Sure you can occasionally be successful doing it that way, but who in the hell wants to be successful occasionally.”
 
Yes I shot action for years using Rf`s (horses).
It can be done but I didn`t find it fun and it restricted the type of shot that you could reasonably achieve.
You`re restricted to pre focussing on jumps but miss the rest of the action .
With a good AF you get the whole story.
As Larry says you can be occasionally successful but who wants that.
 
I used to do classic motorsport, but found the RF focal lengths too limiting. It really does depend on the shot you are after, but to me either long or macro is SLR territory. Your mileage may well vary.
 
How You Do It

How You Do It

For nearly a century there were no zoom lenses or auto focus.
How was it done?

First rule: focus 1/3 in 2/3 out for depth of field.
Focus on a spot on the ground where the action is anticipated.
Lead the action with the viewfinder.
If you are lucky enough to have M or later Leica, view through the view finder with your right eye but with both eyes open to watch the action progress. Look for the planned focus point. When the subject(s) cross that point release the shutter.
 
Dektol Dan said:
For nearly a century there were no zoom lenses or auto focus.
How was it done?

First rule: focus 1/3 in 2/3 out for depth of field.
Focus on a spot on the ground where the action is anticipated.
Lead the action with the viewfinder.
If you are lucky enough to have M or later Leica, view through the view finder with your right eye but with both eyes open to watch the action progress. Look for the planned focus point. When the subject(s) cross that point release the shutter.
Click to expand...


Yep I use to do most of that especially focussing on a spot on the ground where I anticipated the action to be .

That all becomes less effective though when things start to move fast and frankly redundant when you can nail the action with a good AF system especially one with eye focus tracking.
 
M9 will give clean 2500 ISO as long as exposure meter is in the middle.
It is old misconception about high iso, not only with Leica.
I will post velodrome pictures with M-E later.
With RF as with any prime you need to be in exact distance from action.
If you are in correct position, not so much of the dof is needed.
 
Timmyjoe said:
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.

ArgusC3a.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
Click to expand...

With all respect, the only thing those examples demonstrate to me is that you really shouldn't cover a basketball game with an Argus. Unless by 'get the shot', you mean 'get a visible image'...
 
Shooting sports with a rangefinder is a bit like teaching a fish to ride a bicycle ... success will be limited! :D
 


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".
 
1/2000, f5.6 ISO2500.
M-E with me :).

Film bw effect added in Nick's collection application.
I screwed WB :) on this spot.

 
i found that two factors help an RF camera get good action shots. A bright, contrasty RF patch certainly helps, but also the throw of the focusing helicoid makes a big difference. A steep, short throw can make a big difference in one's ability to catch the right focus moment. I had some luck, even with football, using the 135 Nikkor with an SP back in the day. But it has a short, fast focus throw. It helped.
 
Thank you to everyone for your experiences, suggestions and images. The images of the hurdler and the velodrome are stunning. They also emphasize that you must be safely close to the action, and be able to manage exposure appropriately. Even the Argus basketball image shows this.

The sport was boxing, and I was ringside. I could get on the ring apron if I wanted, and I was able to stand as close to the action as the ring permitted. The 50mm seemed adequate, but the chaotic nature of the action meant that focusing was a crapshoot. I could anticipate high points or actions based on what I knew of the fighters, but focusing accurately was difficult. The M9 has a 3fps burst mode, which was very helpful, although not optimal.

I'll keep doing this when I can because it's fun, and the images aren't mission critical at this stage. When they are, I'll probably have to rent or buy something more appropriate. Shooting sports with a rangefinder is like driving a truck with your willy. It's a fun challenge, but do you really want to do it?
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom