Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]As someone who uses both manual focus (Contax RX, 167MT) and autofocus SLR (Nikon F5, N90s), it has been my experience that if you want to get quick shots at sporting events, then it is far easier with a good AF. There are several features that make this possible -- the high speed drives (3+ fps) combined with a good metering system (one of the best is the one found in the Nikon F5). I enjoy my Contax system, but if i need speed and decent accuracy, then I go with a good AF system. However, please note the caveats -- (1) I am not a professional photographer; (2) I do not focus extensively on sporting events; (3) I do not take a large number of pictures per week (so my time for practice is limited). With these caveats, if I had to take pictures at a sporting event where I need to get the shots right and where I could not prefocus, then I would take my Nikon F5. My two cents worth. Steven A. Melnyk Michigan State University Proud owner of a Leica M6ttl (.85x) At 07:48 AM 1/17/01 -0500, you wrote: >I find the discussion regarding use of an M6 for fast moving kids very >interesting. I'm going through a similar decision process to determine if >an R8 or auto-focus SLR would be better suited for sports photography >(primarily soccer and basketball). On one hand, I think with practice an R8 >can do anything an auto-focus camera can do. On the other hand, I "imagine" >a Canon EOS 1v or Nikon F5 can do it easier. My question is can an >auto-focus camera "really" be easier for sports type photography? > >Rick Floyd >-- Steven A. Melnyk melnyk@pilot.msu.edu