Tripod for football ?

<p><a

href="http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/index.php/2006/11/20/football-photography-game-day-notes">Last

wednesday I shot a football game</a>. For the occasion I rented a Canon EF

300/2.8 with a 1.4 teleconverter. That results in a 420 mm focal length which

with no IS is bound to make camera shake inevitable. Of course subject movement

is at least as great a problem as camera shake, and my lacking framing and

focusing abilities are a both much bigger problems in their own right. And if

there is enough light, a higher shutter speed makes both motion shake and

subject movement a moot point. But still my experience of such a big lens on a

monopod made me wonder : does anyone use a tripod for photographing sports such

as football ? The video people are doing it - would it be a good idea for

photographers too ? I suspect that preserving decent framing freedom requires an

excellent tripod head - does anyone know what sort of head would be suitable ? I

suspect that my Manfrotto 329RC4 head is only good for static frames. So what is

more suitable : ball head, joystick, video head, something else ? Is the whole

thing even worth considering or should I stick to my monopod for that use ?</p><div></div>

I shot football (among other things) professionally for 20 years. If you plan to set up and stay in one spot for the duration of the game (which is what the video guys tend to do) a tripod can be marvelous. But, if you want to be able to relocate along the sidelines as the game shifts, a monopod is the device of choice IMHO.<p>Henry Posner<br><b>B&H Photo-Video, Inc. </b>

A tripod on the sidelines is dangerous for you and the players - you have no ability to move quickly in case a play heads straight for you.

I've shot football scenes from the stands with a tripod (HS games). But with my tripod, probably with most of them, there's just no way to follow the action. So if your shutter speeds are too slow, you can catch some shots of the action, but not completely cover the game like a normal sports photographer would. The tripod approach is more useful for the fans in the far bleachers, the band and drill team, etc.- the people that tend to stay put. The sideline photographers that I have noticed use big lenses with monopod for farther off stuff, then switch to zoom handheld on separate body when the action gets too close.

I have seen tripods used successfully at football games, but not with 300's and tc's on them. A 500mm or 600mm very far back in the endzone, about 10-15 yards past the back of the endzone, where you should be out of harms way. Setting up on the sidelines with a tripod is not a good idea. I have seen (and been on the receiving end) of too many wild plays that end up right where photographers end up setting up and even without a monopod, it can be very hard to get out of the way. Now throw tripod legs into the mix where excited coaches or players on the sidelines run up and down with the play, sideline officials or chain gangs moving up and down the sidelines and those sideline routes that are just going to be drawn like a magnet to your tripod.

 

IF you do use a tripod, be sure you have liability insurance.

Used to shoot high school football and I've never seen a tripod used by a still photographer. Never seen one at a college or pro game either. I was run over a couple of times and agree that a tripod would be a hazard on the sideline. In fact I would doubt that the teams/stadium would allow it. A tripod might keep your camera steady but it isn't going to do anything about motion blur from running players. The high shutter speeds you need to capture the motion are also high enough to take care of camera shake or close to it so I don't see the point. What ISO are you using? 800 and 1600 are pretty common in football unless you're in full bright sunlight, so if you're not at those speeds maybe you need to just crank up the ISO. Monopods are standard equipment and OK on the sidelines so that's the route I would go.

Just to clarify things, as the picture attests I was mentioning the sport that about everyone outside of North America calls "football" where coaches don't run around much (although they do yell quite a bit too) and where the gravest danger menacing the unsuspecting photographer is being bumped into by some random missed pass - not the American homonym where bystanders definitely are in danger of being buried under a pile of armored guys flying in from all directions. In football, as long as you stand maybe three meters back to leave enough room for the line referee, the throw-ins, substitutes warming up and the occasional stray player you are relatively safe.

 

I used the setup that Stephen mentioned : a 300/2.8 x1.4 on a monopod + a 70-200/2.8 on a second body slung from my neck. That was perfect for roaming around the field. As Carl mentions, the tripod probably makes much more sense above 500 mm for standing farther back or higher up. But with a big lens on top I don't think that a tripod makes a big difference in clumsiness although the footprint is indeed bigger. Reaction time to fast closing action is probably similar : with a tripod you are less mobile but you can grab the second body without worrying about balancing the big lens on you shoulder - although that body switching soon becomes second nature.

 

Last wednesday in the first half there was no need for a tripod and I could have even handheld the 420 mm assembly : at 1600 ISO I ran f/4 1/4000 which was probably four times overkill (400 ISO and 1/1000 would have been less noisy and just as sharp). But in the end that game was badly lit and I was down to 1/200 and even sometimes 1/125 at 3200 ISO, also at f/4. And that was way too slow - which made me think about a tripod although subject movement makes probably that an idea of dubious efficiency.

 

On the body with the 70-200/2.8 I mounted a 580EX. That was good for close-up action even in the low light. In normal flash mode at the highest sync speed (1/125) I found 1600 ISO and f/2.8 to be relatively comfortable. The time before I had mounted that secondary body with a 380EX and put the 580EX on the long lens body with a Better Beamer Fresnel lens. Theoretically the 580EX with the Better Beamer was a good match for a 400 mm lens but I found its effect to be dubious on top of being a bit unwieldy. This time I preferred to have a flash only on the close-up body and found it to be a better solution. But maybe I should make more tests to give the Better Beamer a second chance.

I've seen (I think) a few tripods used at soccer/football games, one that I recall specifically had high press interest as it was the last game for Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy and Joy Fawcett, who had been so important to the US women's programs, both international and professional. So there were a number of photographers using tripods as well as the usual monopods and roving shooters. Those using the tripods were seated well back in the four corners behind the end lines sitting behind the signs to stay out of the spectator sight lines. I don't recall being able to tell what type of head was being used, I'm guessing it was one of the ballheads with adjustable tension (or gimbals) so that little effort was needed to move it yet the weight would be caried by the tripod.

 

But that may have come from a need to accomodate both a large number of cameras and to keep them out of the way of the spectators, it was the Home Depot Center in Carson, Ca., and the seats come down pretty close to field level.