"The hand of God" - Sports cameras in 1986

Crotal Bell

Crotal Bell

Messages
2,568
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been watching old footage of world cups in the run up to this years event and it got me thinking.

That famous photo of Maradona, clearly handling the ball as Perter Shilton went to punch it, I remember it being on the front of all the papers the next morning.

So it got me wondering, what would have been the top pro cameras for the sports photographers back in 1986 ?
 
Crotal Bell said:
I've been watching old footage of world cups in the run up to this years event and it got me thinking.

That famous photo of Maradona, clearly handling the ball as Perter Shilton went to punch it, I remember it being on the front of all the papers the next morning.

So it got me wondering, what would have been the top pro cameras for the sports photographers back in 1986 ?
Click to expand...
I surmise that the usual suspects of Canon and Nikon were back then very commonplace in sports photography?
 
Crotal Bell said:
I've been watching old footage of world cups in the run up to this years event and it got me thinking.

That famous photo of Maradona, clearly handling the ball as Perter Shilton went to punch it, I remember it being on the front of all the papers the next morning.

So it got me wondering, what would have been the top pro cameras for the sports photographers back in 1986 ?
Click to expand...
Canon: New F1

Nikon: F3
 
Rarely saw anything other than Canon or Nikon on the sidelines, like the above F1 and F3 were the most popular. Great fun manually focussing 400mm f2.8s at top level athletes in full flow, and being nervous of taking too many shots as you knew when you loaded that 3rd roll of 36 exposure film then you were in for the Spanish Inquisition back at the office over the cost of film!
 
Musicman said:
Nom.

I've the original F1 (and a bunch of other FD bodies including A-1 and T90) but I never have gotten round to owning a New F-1.

Which is odd because one like that with the AE finder is in theory my perfect FD camera (and it looks so good).
Click to expand...
This was one of 3 I had back before digital, 2 I had with motordrives and one without. I sold the other 2 when I started to go digital but this one was the first I got so I kept it, I have a motordrive for it and 24, 35, 50, 85, 135 and 300mm lenses too. Shamefully I rarely use it though as I prefer Medium Format for my film shooting these days.
 
Musicman said:
Nom.

I've the original F1 (and a bunch of other FD bodies including A-1 and T90) but I never have gotten round to owning a New F-1.

Which is odd because one like that with the AE finder is in theory my perfect FD camera (and it looks so good).
Click to expand...
I always wanted a T90 but never got around to getting one. I saw one some years back for £37 and thought about it, went back next day and it was gone. Yes I was a wally!
 
swanseamale47 said:
I always wanted a T90 but never got around to getting one. I saw one some years back for £37 and thought about it, went back next day and it was gone. Yes I was a wally!
Click to expand...

Bad luck! Rather the opposite for me - IIRC I picked mine up for fifty quid. I have mixed feelings about it the T90 - it's a bulky beast and it needs a bit of TLC (due to a design flaw the shutter needs to be fired regularly or it gets stuck).

I am also not much of a fan of motor drives and prefer manual wind for what I do. Metering options are excellent, though, and having a control dial is much better than the entirely button-driven interface on the T70. In many ways it's an EOS camera without autofocus.
 
This man would have happily told you all about it Mike King sadly he passed away seven years ago at a comparatively young age. I was fortunate to have run into him on Flickr chatting about some photographs of South London I had posted, he was very generous with his time and always willing to offer constructive criticism, at his funeral in Dulwich the church was absolutely packed with a whos who of photojournalists and sports writer.
I would link to his Flickr account which had a lot of amazing pre digital images but it has become dormant in the last couple of years, his Facebook account is still viewable though most of the photographs are from the later period where he was covering extreme marathons and local events.
 
Musicman said:
Nom.

I've the original F1 (and a bunch of other FD bodies including A-1 and T90) but I never have gotten round to owning a New F-1.
Click to expand...
Having owned both models, I would say that you missed nowt!

The original F1 was a superb bit of kit, in my opinion...

Canon F1 old and lenses.jpg

...but the F1N was a horrible camera so far as I was concerned...

Canon F1N front.JPG

I hated the feel of the thing, with its anodised finish and the built in handgrip that was, again in my opinion, worse than useless.

If Canon had stuck with the original body and just added the functional improvements, I think they'd have done much better.
 
It does always make me laugh when you read a modern camera review and see things like "only 7 FPS and poor AF tracking make this camera completely unsuitable for sports photography", when many of the most iconic sports images were shot on a manual focus only 35mm camera where the FPS was limited by how quickly your thumb could wind the film on.
 
RichardC27 said:
It does always make me laugh when you read a modern camera review and see things like "only 7 FPS and poor AF tracking make this camera completely unsuitable for sports photography", when many of the most iconic sports images were shot on a manual focus only 35mm camera where the FPS was limited by how quickly your thumb could wind the film on.
Click to expand...
I suppose they are taking the view that compared to other modern cameras it's a poor choice.
When it comes to comparing old to new though, I guess any modern DSLR is in a different league to what was available in the 80s.
 
I had an F1n briefly but sold it when the T90 was released. Unfortunately, my T90 was a lemon which developed a crack in the pentaprism without any sign of external damage. There weren't any spares in the country so it was out-of-action for a couple of months. When I got it back, it over-exposed badly. I eventually got rid of it and went Nikon with a F801s.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I always wanted a T90 but never got around to getting one. I saw one some years back for £37 and thought about it, went back next day and it was gone. Yes I was a wally!
Click to expand...
I bought a T70 but it was stolen after 12 months and by this time it was already obsolete. The insurance was new for old so it was agreed that the T90 was the nearest (though more expensive). When the Insurance investigator gave me the cheque to cover the camera and a couple of lenses (also stolen), she suggested staring afresh with the Canon EOS 600. This turned out to be a good choice which I used right until 2005 when I bought digital. From the comments above it seems I was right to choose the EOS 600 rather than the T90.

Dave
 
RichardC27 said:
It does always make me laugh when you read a modern camera review and see things like "only 7 FPS and poor AF tracking make this camera completely unsuitable for sports photography", when many of the most iconic sports images were shot on a manual focus only 35mm camera where the FPS was limited by how quickly your thumb could wind the film on.
Click to expand...

Sports images required pre-planning - tracking was impossible - so you had to guess where the action would be and prefocus there, then wait for the action. Many of the iconic sports photos that were adored for their ability to catch a moment would be ordinary now, because the better cameras can track the action, and in the hands of a decent photographer will produce amazing pictures day after day.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Sports images required pre-planning - tracking was impossible - so you had to guess where the action would be and prefocus there, then wait for the action. Many of the iconic sports photos that were adored for their ability to catch a moment would be ordinary now, because the better cameras can track the action, and in the hands of a decent photographer will produce amazing pictures day after day.
Click to expand...


Not true at all. Follow focus was used extensively.
 
DemiLion said:
Not true at all. Follow focus was used extensively.
Click to expand...

You could try to follow focus a subject moving through the frame, but only if it wasn't moving rapidly towards or away from you. One could 'twist and pray' and maybe get lucky, but it wasn't like a modern tracking AF system with high success rate. Perhaps I could have worded that statement a little more cautiously, but tracking was increasingly hit & miss with subject velocity.
 
RichardC27 said:
It does always make me laugh when you read a modern camera review and see things like "only 7 FPS and poor AF tracking make this camera completely unsuitable for sports photography", when many of the most iconic sports images were shot on a manual focus only 35mm camera where the FPS was limited by how quickly your thumb could wind the film on.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. Most of the iconic photos of the last century were taken on cameras that simply wouldn’t be entertained nowadays but to balance the argument I suspect photo agencies are far more demanding nowadays I.e they want the image seconds after it was taken and fully sharp and a thousand either side to choose from!!
 
ancient_mariner said:
You could try to follow focus a subject moving through the frame, but only if it wasn't moving rapidly towards or away from you. One could 'twist and pray' and maybe get lucky, but it wasn't like a modern tracking AF system with high success rate. Perhaps I could have worded that statement a little more cautiously, but tracking was increasingly hit & miss with subject velocity.
Click to expand...


Tell that to Ed Burne, former racing photographer for the Daily Telegraph.

He was using a manual 500/4 at the Derby only a few years ago.

The boys that did sport in those days were good. Very, very good.
 
Minolta AF was good at the time, but would never be able to track moving objects. I still have my Minolta 7000 which had the same AF as the 9000.

Mind you, the focussing screen was MUCH better than anything else I can remember from the time.
 
Last edited:
They did, but Canon's early AF was barely functional, and the Minolta series were the first practical AF system on the market. I tried a T80 around the same time as the Minolta and it was a bizarre experience, with the lens gradually nudging it's way towards focussing, although if it actually managed to focus you were quite lucky. The shop were happy to demo the camera, but saw it as a novelty to draw customers rather than a serious photographic tool.
 
The Canon FD 35-70mm f/4 AF (or either of the AC series AF lenses from 1985) was certainly not a lens that you would be likely to find being used at a World Cup final in 1986, except perhaps for publicity
 
Last edited:
Crazy how spoiled we are by technology these days.

One thing I'm always amazed by though is the camera operators at live sports broadcasts. How they're manually pulling focus, tracking a touchdown throw down the pitch is insane.
 
Adam-G said:
Crazy how spoiled we are by technology these days.

One thing I'm always amazed by though is the camera operators at live sports broadcasts. How they're manually pulling focus, tracking a touchdown throw down the pitch is insane.
Click to expand...


It isn't as hard as you think.
If you actually watch sports broadcast and pay attention to the camera angles, you'll notice that most of it is shot very wide - allowing a good margin for depth of field.

Most of the tight up stuff is reserved for more static plays but even where it isn't you will; also notice how often the shot is actually out of focus.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Minolta AF was good at the time, but would never be able to track moving objects. I still have my Minolta 7000 which had the same AF as the 9000.

Mind you, the focussing screen was MUCH better than anything else I can remember from the time.
Click to expand...
I've still got my Minolta 9000, 35-70mm, 70-200mm and af4000 flash....had it since 1986 and used it for around 18 years before moving to digital....
 
Last edited:
It's some of the golf shots that amaze me - how can the camera operators even keep a small ball in the frame while perched atop a crane which is being waggled around in the breeze let alone get it in focus some of the time!
 
Nod said:
It's some of the golf shots that amaze me - how can the camera operators even keep a small ball in the frame while perched atop a crane which is being waggled around in the breeze let alone get it in focus some of the time!
Click to expand...
Years ago (many) I went to school with a lad who always wanted to be a tv cameraman. Despite less than complimentary comments from teaching staff (including further education teachers) he ended up working for Sky in Kosovo amongst other places. I asked him about golf, apparently in those days (80’s & 90’s) they simply inverted the monitor contrast, so the ball was a black dot. It made it pretty easy allegedly!
 
Nod said:
It's some of the golf shots that amaze me - how can the camera operators even keep a small ball in the frame while perched atop a crane which is being waggled around in the breeze let alone get it in focus some of the time!
Click to expand...
I wonder if there's any videos about that, the skill side never occurred to me when I watched golf but didn't have a camera.
 
Brazo said:
I completely agree. Most of the iconic photos of the last century were taken on cameras that simply wouldn’t be entertained nowadays but to balance the argument I suspect photo agencies are far more demanding nowadays I.e they want the image seconds after it was taken and fully sharp and a thousand either side to choose from!!
Click to expand...
True, but they'll take what they can get, regardless of technical quality, especially for news photos.

This example, of the Whitby lifeboat just after she launched in an attempt to save 3 people who had put to sea in a leisure boat in foul weather from the harbour right next to them, was shot at f/2.8 on a D2X, ISO 400 - which was about the highest practicable ISO setting at the time. From memory, it was shot at 1/1000th.
whitby_lifeboat.JPG
It was shot as is, with no cropping. The Lifeboat station was fully staffed as they were doing training. They saw the boat leaving the harbour, radioed it to tell them not to go but received no reply and then launched immediately. The lifeboat launched so quickly that not all of the crew were fully dressed. As you can see, two crew members (including the man in red) clearly have lifelines attached. He had just saved the life of the man he was holding, who didn't, and who he had grabbed hold of as he was thrown along the deck.

There were no survivors from the leisure boat but the lifeboat (and helicopter crew) were amazing.

This isn't my photo but the photographer gave me permission to reproduce it.

With shots like this, nobody cares about sharpness.
 
Garry Edwards said:
True, but they'll take what they can get, regardless of technical quality, especially for news photos.

This example, of the Whitby lifeboat just after she launched in an attempt to save 3 people who had put to sea in a leisure boat in foul weather from the harbour right next to them, was shot at f/2.8 on a D2X, ISO 400 - which was about the highest practicable ISO setting at the time. From memory, it was shot at 1/1000th.
View attachment 374143
It was shot as is, with no cropping. The Lifeboat station was fully staffed as they were doing training. They saw the boat leaving the harbour, radioed it to tell them not to go but received no reply and then launched immediately. The lifeboat launched so quickly that not all of the crew were fully dressed. As you can see, two crew members (including the man in red) clearly have lifelines attached. He had just saved the life of the man he was holding, who didn't, and who he had grabbed hold of as he was thrown along the deck.

There were no survivors from the leisure boat but the lifeboat (and helicopter crew) were amazing.

This isn't my photo but the photographer gave me permission to reproduce it.

With shots like this, nobody cares about sharpness.
Click to expand...
Great photo, more important to have the moment than a pin sharp result.
1/1000th SS, how fast were the old cameras before digital?
 
Garry Edwards said:
With shots like this, nobody cares about sharpness.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

Moreover, if a shot fitted both the story and the available space, it got used. Many photographers would be amazed at the sales I made to the local and regional press, just because they were the right image at the right time! This was actually quite a "good" picture, quality wise... :naughty:

Pantomime scene Nikon F 1991 20-21.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top