Do you chaps use a tripod and pan your camera? These two will "extend" your shutter speed by 1 to 2 exposure stops. Sometimes it would be nice to show some appropriate blur, say of the racquet, but with the player in relatively sharp focus. In badminton, I guess panning is only possible from the side. BTW, do digital SLR cameras have a viewfinder with interchangeable focusing screens? Also do their lenses have aperture click-stops for manual setting? Also does the shutter allow for manual setting?
I thinkone of our BFer's has done that. Haven't seen it on a big screen but it looked good on the LCD screen of the camera. I'd quite like to get a focusing for my camera but keep forgetting to ask about it. No aperture ring on my lenses - it's set electronically.
I've tried to pan the lens for some shots. The successful rate is low as players will move many direction unlike car racing. Changing of focusing screen is only available for high grade DSLRs. For Canon, available for EOS-1D II & II N, 5D but not for 30D & 350D. I heard the famous photographer Lung Kwan Yee has changed the focus screen of his EOS 1Ds Mark II to split image type. For Nikon, available for D2X, D2H, D2Hs, D1H, D1X. Not for D70s, D80, D200, D100. However, only one option for Nikon which is grid type screen. For dSLR, adjustment of aperture is thro' the camera, not thro' the lens. yes.
Thanks for the answers. I understand that the new Leica M digital M8 rangefinder camera, and the Digital-Module-R for the R9 SLR camera, do not use any auto focus lenses at all. This is more my cup of tea. Why then are other digital brand cameras designed around AF lenses.
2 of my nature photographer friends use the Leica teleyt 800 f/5.6 attached to Canon 1D2. It has no autofocus, no IS/VR. They also have Canon lenses like the 400 f/2.8, 600 f/4 and it seems like got the Leica because more because they wanted to collect a classic lens. The disdavantages to a fully manual, non AF, non-IS Leica 800 f/5.6 are: (1) AF reaction time to fast moving action still faster. (2) If you are in a sweltering hide in a jungle for hours on end waiting for the elusive shot, fatigue, muscle cramps etc, will make AF more efficient than MF. (3) If you shoot a sports events for hours the whole day (believe me, even in airconditioned venue, it's tiring on the eyes), the level of concentration required to Manual focus is much higher and towards the end of the day, your MF focusing ability will drop. and who knows if u get health problems with your eyes... So why do my friends like to take the Leica out once in a while (they don't bring it to the jungle with them... too precious ) (1) They are not paid to bring back consistently good shots. So if they don't get a good shot, nevermind try again. (2) They say Leica's colours are better.. (when the shot is in focus ) (3) When they get a good shot with the Leica lens, they find it more satisfying. I'm guessing that is why Taneepak is so insistent on manual as well... Like my friends (who are much older than I am), he probably finds all-manual more satisfying, even if AF is superior For the rest of us, I think we feel that getting a nice photograph matter more than the photographic journey the photographer embarked upon in order to get the shot. Of course when I am older, we may have cameras connected to the brain and I will complain 'back then, we had to adjust ISO ourselves' and people will say I am just 'old school' Another thing taneepak, how much experience have you had shooting with telephotos wide open with very narrow depths of field? My experience is that most leica users shoot wide angles, 24, 28, 35 whatever where the depth of field is generous and hides focusing errors and furthermore, the resolution of film is not as high as digital which further obscures critical sharpness. Of course, Leica users will say that it's not the sharpness, it's the colour and bokeh.
manual focus is great for more static subjects. makes one slow down and think about the picture instead of taking the AF system for granted. however, for sports, MF is unfortunately too slow, think about badminton, by the time you get to rotate the focus ring, the player is probably at the other end of the court already.
Color may be a little bit better. But the most outstanding part that u can find is a detailed shadow area. I would say. That's true with a Leica M but not a Leica R. It's just because of the design of range finder cameras. Without a mirror inside. The rear element of a lens can stick closer to the film surface. So, the DOF will generally be deeper than shooting with a SLR.
So to summarise, if you want to shoot through the net with manual focus, you are probably going to get more keepers with a Leica M series....wow!! Probably because AF technology came first, manufacturers changed their lenses and then digital. Leica didn't jump on to the AF bandwagon unlike the other main 35mm manufacturers.
that depends on what shutter speed you had to start off with. in my shooting experience, i will be happy to get 1/320s. if i go down two stops, i will end up with 1/80s. the player will be a big blob of blur. perhaps sometimes that makes an interesting photo, but honestly, in general it will be of not much use. if you start off with 1/1000s, maybe that's worth trying out, but do you really want to see the net covering the player? i personally prefer the net not to be there.
I think the Leica extreme telephoto lenses are specifically designed for the Leica slr. The Canon slr camera body is narrower than the Leica's reflex body, and hence 3rd party adapter ring manufacturers do produce such Leica lenses-to-Canon body adapters. But the close tolerances of the original are not as close when used with a lens-to-body adapter. BTW, the 800mm f/5.6 is not just a long fous length lens. It is a system with focal lengths from 280mm to 800mm. The whole system is modular and is specially designed for sports and nature photography. The system consist of 2 lens heads of apochromatic specifications and 3 focusing modules, to give a combination of 6 different APO-lenses. The lens heads and focusing modules can be dismantled and the assembled for easy carrying. I have a 400mm f/6.8 telyt, based on the same lens they made specially for the 1968 Olympics. I have used this lens many times for birds photography and it is spectacular. The lens I have can be used on my M rangefinder camera, with a Visoflex, and on my Leica R4 SLR , is a 2 glass element lens. It is fast, light, and I always used its maixmum aperture, with its shoulder stock, which gives the appearance that you are holding a rifle. I used to have a 300mm Apo Sigma lens adapetd to my Leica SLR, and it was a big let-down, despite its APO speification, when compared to the 400mm Telyt. BTW my Telyt is a true long focus lens, unlike most modern telephoto lenses with their many compromises.
Until the modern SLR came along the Leica M was a rangefinder cum SLR camera. I used to use a Leica Visoflex with my M3 or M4 to mount my 400mm Telyt and 90mm Summicron to take pictures, the former taking flying birds and the latter at the Queen Elizabeth stadium for badminton shots. But the Leica M body plus the Visoflex is more bulky than an SLR. As a consequence, they don't make the Leica Visoflex Reflex Housing anymore.
I don't think that is true. The reason is lens design. The smaller the lens, appropriate for the image area, the easier it is to desgn a spectacular lens. That is the reason why, even in the Leica world of lenses, its M lenses are always much better than its R lenses. Take wide angle lenses. I don't think you can design a true wide angle lenses for any SLR cameras. They compromise, with consequential loss in quality, with retrofocus designs and moving elements. Other mehanical ugly heads, like auto focusing, auto aperture, mirror box, etc makes it impossible to make superb lenses with extreme tight tolerances. But all these are moot if all you want is a picture vs the alternative of no picture at all.
i always thought the fact that Leica M lenses are smaller than their R counterpart is that the rangefinder by nature has a shorter register distance, thus allowing more flexible lens design. SLR are at a disadvantage as they need space for the mirror. that, and that Leica have excellent glass and optics. but that technology should also apply to the R series lenses also.
The M body has no mirror or mirror box, thus allowing the lens designer to design the perfect lens without any constraints. A true wide angle lens can therefore be designed with its rear element almost touching the back of the camera (film plane). Contrast that with a SLR camera which has a mirror box. The mirror will shatter the rear elements of a true wide angle lens. So they compromise by choosing a retrofocus design, not a true wide angle but an inverted telephoto lens. BTW, lens design depends on optical quality and even more on mechanical perfection. The perfect lens must be assembled by real experts, otherwise they are a waste. That is why Leica lenses assembled in Germany are preferred over those made in other countries.
Another alternative is to focus at the shoe, press button and hold. Aim the player and now you can press again and click.
