Yesterday I went to the 4 Man Bobsleigh Runs 1 and 2 at the Salt Lake 2002 Winter Olympics. I saw every kind of camera imaginable. What was the funniest thing there was the people whipping out their digital cameras trying to catch a shot of the bobsleigh. WHAT A JOKE! The bobsleigh (I was informed that they are not bobSLEDS!!), anyway the sleigh comes down the track at 85 to 87 mile per hour. As the sleigh passes you it is a RUSH. You feel, hear, and see the sleigh as it RUSHES past!

Anyway these people, and they were numerous, would have DIGITAL camera in hand poised and ready to shoot that ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME shot. The bobsleigh comes, they hear "and now they are in turn 13...approaching the straight-a-way" as they listen to the commentator, their pulse quickens, they see the sleigh, the shutter release is tripped, has that shot turned out? As they look to their view screens to proof their shot they find that the sleigh is not even in the image. "How can that be?" they say with puzzled looks on their faces, and set out to try again! The sleigh has passed right by and out of the image before the DELAY of the camera was over.

It was funny seeing all these people trying to judge the timing of their shutters so they could trip it...wait for the delay...and capture the sleigh. And all everybody would say to me and my lowly (to their ignorant little minds) Leica is "you better have fast film". Ignorance must be bliss!

-- Rob Schopke (schopke@attbi.com), February 23, 2002

Answers

Great observation!

It's funny -- I use to use my F5 to capture my daughter in jumping competitions on her horse... Why the F5? Because my F100 wasn't fast enough. I needed the 8 frames per second to get "the decisive moment" on film -- just prior to her hitting the apex of the jump -- and even then it was about a 50/50 proposition at each jump, the ideal frame being the imaginary one between two that I had... But they were all perfectly exposed and in focus!

Then one day, I took only my M and 90TE to the horse show. I shot six shots at six different jumps and captured "the moment" in five of the six. That's when I bought the 135 for my M and decided to sell all my Nikon gear. (BTW, the Nikon gear is all gone, and I don't miss it a bit. Yet.)

And it is the same reason I am currently avoiding digital. 3 FPS won't cut it. 6 FPS at low resolution won't cut it. But next year I'm sure Canon or Nikon will have a D-##-HS that will be capable of 20 8 megapixel frames per second. Then it will be a piece of cake to capture "the moment"... Of course it will then be a real PITA to delete the 19 images that didn't make the cut!

;-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 23, 2002.

I agree Jack, far better to really try and anticipate the decisive moment rather than rely on the motorwind, after all at 1/1000 and 8fps the photographer still misses 992 of 1000 (theoretically) possible frames!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 23, 2002.

Even doing one better than film camera: video camera! Beat that! The Canon GL-1 offers amazing video, unless you are bent on taking a still photo.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), February 23, 2002.

Well Canon has the EOS 1D which will do 8fps for 21 frames. Only 4.1 mpix though. Then again, images from it have been used for double page spreads in Sports Illustrated. I think it's unfair to paint shutter delay as being a digital problem. It's more of a low-end camera problem. plenty of p&s film cameras have a bad focus-fire delay after you push the button. the trick has always been to prefocus with all of those camera, digital or not. Also, I would have to disagree that using a F5 is paramount to relying on the motordrive. I think it's all in the way you shoot. The F5 has the shortest shutter lag of any camera I've ever used, and I feel I can catch any moment I want to with it.

Now, there is something to be said for having to mirror blackout by using a rangefinder, but that's another discussion.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), February 23, 2002.

A photog at the USA v Russia game was using an M to get shots of Team USA. Clearly visable even on the TV. Go figure.

-- Brooks (Bvonarx@home.com), February 23, 2002.

I think that SI still use film, because we had an SI photog come out to cover one of the home football games last season, and someone from the Daily had to take his film to SFO. I also recall seeing a full page digital picture of a golfer w/ a caddy carrying an AK47 which had JPEG artifacts all over the place.

-- Ken Kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), February 23, 2002.

Ken is quite mistaken. Read these:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2001-06/2001_06_22_golf.html

http://www.robgalbraith.com/diginews/2001- 09/2001_09_30_quicklinks.html

that one is a cover shot

There are more, but those will do for now. Although it looks like I was wrong about the double page shot from the EOS 1d. I was pretty sure I had read about that somewhere. But I found the swimming photo that I had though it was, only to find out it was shot with a Nikon D1X. So who knows.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), February 23, 2002.

Josh,

I'm not sure Ken is mistaken. At least according to the sites you cite. Indeed, Mr. Galbraith used a Nikon D1X to cover the US open last summer. His aerial shot covers two pages in SI.

If you read the article he says that the Nikon D1X is only 3 fps and says it would be iffy for football. I presume Ken DID see an SI photographer use a film camera for the football game.

The article is interesting as it covers his experience with the Nikon shooting the US open. I'm not sure digital has captured the action photography segment for sports illustrated--at least according to Mr. Galbraith.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), February 23, 2002.

Well perhaps I should have been more specific. Ken is mistaken that SI just uses film. I have no doubt that he saw a SI shooter use film at the football game. In fact, I'm sure that there's still an overwhelming majority of SI shooters who use film rahter than digital. I was just pointing out that, yes there have been a number of published images in SI that came from digital sources.

And since we're clearing up miscommunications here, David Bergman was the photographer, not Rob Galbraith.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), February 23, 2002.

I meant to say that for the majority of cover shots SI still uses slide film. Sorry for the confusion. Ken

-- Ken Kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), February 23, 2002.

Well from my understanding, digital capture with sports pros is the rule now. Even for football. I do know that Grahm Watson, the great cycling photographer shot the Tour-de-France on a d1x and that is not a slow moving sport. For more insight on sports pros check out this link:

http://www.manginphotography.com/sptshtr.html

Peace, and the f100 is too slow? um, I don't seem to have a problem with mine capturing mountainbike racing. It takes more than FPS to catch the decisive moment.

Peace, John Tomljenovic

-- johnny t (zadar72@yahoo.com), February 24, 2002.

I use a Nikon 995 sometimes and take picures at horse shows (jumping). I find that if you prefocus or manually set focus, the shutter delay is not much of a problem. If you don't prefocus, you'll just get a horse's butt clearing the jump. Of course the bobsleds are going by much faster, and prefocusing/panning is the only way to capture them.

My main horse show camera is my F100 w/80-200 2.8 Zoom. But next weekend I'm going to try the M6. But I'm afraid that with a 90 as the longest lens, I won't get many shots that "fill the frame."

-- MikeP (mike996@optonline.net), February 24, 2002.

I am sorry to see all the debate over this posting. I posted it simply to entertain an add a little humor. These cameras were point and shoots, they were entry level with a plethora of gadets, and in no way would I image them being used in a professional fashion.

What I thought was funny about the experience was the looks of puzzlement and confusion when they stopped, look at the image they captured, and found no bobsleigh. What I also thought was funny was how I was in this crowd of high tech gadgetry and they looked at me and thought that my M was old, antiquated, and out dated.

Really it was a great experience for me and I was humored by the events around me and wanted to share it with y'all.

But thank you for your interesting responses to my posts.

-- Rob Schopke (schopke@attbi.com), February 24, 2002.

to begin this post, let me state: I HATE DIGITAL!

but, if you are under deadline, there are a few things that can improve digital performance: 1st, using the 16x Lexar CF cards as opposed to slower 12x ones makes a bit of a difference in reducing the shutter delay. not much, but a bit. 2nd, or bigger reproductions or prints, the trick is often to spend the money, and get a 4x5 neg. or transparency made from the digital file, my Canon G2 has a theoretical 11 MB file compressed down to about a 1.5 MB JPG, that will look sharp as a 4x5. then, drum scan (more money!) or print from this neg. or slide. there will be more grain, and the loss of a generation, but no increase in that horrible "digital" noise. also you will then have a neg. or slide not subject to accidental loss on a harddrive. 3rd, never set the digital ASA above 100, what you gain is not worth what you lose.

finally, back up those digital pix with your trusty leica!

cheers,

alan

-- alan chin (rat101@aol.com), March 06, 2002.