Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Since I'm the guy that asked the question, and started the whole
thing, let me be more specific. First, I am an amateur, and second,
shooting a whole roll to get a few really good shots is not a problem.
I'd love to get 24 of 24 perfect shots, but film is cheap and there's
always a game next week.
My daughter has played indoor soccer for several years. The M (in my
case, M3) is a wonderful sports camera for indoor sports if you can
get close enough. Since my daughter plays goalie, I can use
appropriate f stop selection with a Vivitar 285 (zoom head) to cover
her expected range of movement through DOF. For lenses I use either a
90mm or a 135 and have gotten many good pictures. To use a SLR would
require that I adjust my setting off the shutter to compensate for the
mirror delay. From my experience, the delay is small but can be
significant. If I shot enough film, i would probably learn to
compensate, but one of the great virtues of the RF system is the
relatively minimal delay between depressing the shutter button and the
shutter firing.
This Fall her team moved into the outdoor league. She still plays
goalie, but a 135 is simply not long enough to reach across the soccer
pitch (parents are not allowed on the sidelines except for 10 yards on
either side of the midfield stripe in her league, so getting closer is
not an option). I was not trying to incite a discussion of whether an
SLR is better for sports photography (the ability to use *really* long
lenses or zooms would seem to be reason enough), but rather to tap the
collective wisdom on the use of the teleextenders or long lenses like
the mentioned 200mm Komura generally. Economics dictate that an AF
SLR is not really an option (although as a former Canon user, I have
to admit that the Elan IIe is doggone attractive).
Sorry for all the confusion.
Bill