Re: [Leica] R8 or Autofocus?

[Ted <tedgrant@home.com>]

Rick Floyd 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?<<<<<<

Hi Rick,

It depends on the sport itself when auto focus is helpful and it isn't necessary
for either soccer or basketball. Not saying there aren't a bundle of guys out
there using it for both these sports. I haven't used AF at anytime on basketball
as the best shots are from low down at basket end and using AF will get you more
outs than ins with a number of players jumping into the viewfinder, better to be
pre focused as you know where they are going to be and when the moment is
right..... click!

AF could be helpful if you're shooting along court side for a running shot but
even then there are loss dangers.

In soccer I've never used AF at anytime and have always follow focused manually
with lots of good results. But there isn't any question if one is a slow manual
focus type the AF becomes an asset. I always thought I could manual focus very
quickly, needed to be fast covering the Olympics and I thought I could be as
fast as AF, yeah right! That is until the day I used one, a Canon EOS and it
blew me away just how fast it was.

However, I still don't own AF cameras and stick with my R8's and good old Leica
glass on manual and not missing too many sharp ones. ;-)

ted Grant