One body, one lens, only for low light work

An interesting factoid:

I went and wrote down each camera recommended and how many times. I did not include cameras that were mentioned but not specifically recommended. Here is my list, maybe not 100% accurate but close:

Hexar rf -1 vote
Leica M2 - 3 votes
Zeiss ZI - 7 votes
Yashica variation - 2 votes
Leica M5 - 4 votes
Bessa's - 4 votes
Leica M6 - 5 votes
OM2 (slr!! :() - 1 vote
Hexar rf - 2 votes
Leica M3 - 1 votes
Leica M7 - 2 votes
Leica CL - 1 vote
M4P - 2 votes

lots of lenses recommended as well

Is this not a great forum? :D Many thanks to all who contributed, it has given me plenty to think about. I wish I had a place to hold and test the M4p and or M2/M3. I will call a local shop were I do my scanning, I know they have several leicas.
 
Pevel, you should consider the Canon P/7/7z with the 50/1.2 lens. Alternatively, go with the Canon body and a 50/1.4 Nikkor. This should give a good LTM combination. I really love the old lenses, hence the LTM recommendations. You can also go for a metered M-body (M5?/CL?) and a Canon 35/1.5 or 1.8 they seem to perform very well.

My 2 cents.

BTW, your M6TTL is doing really great. :cool:
 
If you are a medium format shooter and otherwise happy with what the medium offers and are willing to work within its limitations but wish to acquire something else for ocassional low light use then I would recommend a good digicam like the Canon G or S series, Panasonic LX3 or my favorite the Ricoh GRD III. I just don't see spending the kind of money for a fast 35/1.2, 50/1.5, and a body would be worth it for whatever quality you can get shooting iso 1600 film. If you are going to shoot iso50 film you are certainly going to reach for something else, right?
 
About the M4-P ... the "original" M4-P (with the recessed windows and old-style frame-lines) has a brass-top and is vulcanite covered. :) A very good condition M4-P should be available around ~ USD800.
 
you can save a little money with an m4-2, which also has less viewfinder clutter because it doesn't have 28mm and 75mm framelines.
 
I love my Mamiya 7 & 7ii. For film in moderately low light I can use my Ikon / Nokton 50mm f1.5, but a modern DSLR and in the near future, cameras like the Leica X1 will be my choice for low light color photography. The right tool for the job.
 
Pevel, you should consider the Canon P/7/7z with the 50/1.2 lens. Alternatively, go with the Canon body and a 50/1.4 Nikkor. This should give a good LTM combination. I really love the old lenses, hence the LTM recommendations. You can also go for a metered M-body (M5?/CL?) and a Canon 35/1.5 or 1.8 they seem to perform very well.

My 2 cents.

BTW, your M6TTL is doing really great.
Click to expand...

I am glad you are enjoying my M6!!! :) The price of the Canon P/7 is really tempting. My concern is the quality of the vf. While I actually really enjoy the handling of the fed5, especially its solid body, the vf is the biggest reason I don't use the camera often. I used the Zorki 4k much more often for this reason, though the camera was no where as nice as the FED5 in my opinion. Etched frame lines don't matter too much as long as they are visible. I just wish I was able to handle some of these cameras prior to buying one. Does anybody know of good locations in Kansas City?

If you are a medium format shooter and otherwise happy with what the medium offers and are willing to work within its limitations but wish to acquire something else for ocassional low light use then I would recommend a good digicam like the Canon G or S series, Panasonic LX3 or my favorite the Ricoh GRD III. I just don't see spending the kind of money for a fast 35/1.2, 50/1.5, and a body would be worth it for whatever quality you can get shooting iso 1600 film. If you are going to shoot iso50 film you are certainly going to reach for something else, right?
Click to expand...

I am usually not happy with color photos on high ISO. My bought my sister a Lumix fz28 for Christmas and has never happy with its high iso quality. And that is a $500 p&s. The results I've had from film beat the camera, in all iso's in my opinion. Velvia 100, Kodachrome, and even some negative films, have higher quality than the Rd-1 when I had the coolscan 5000 ed. I did like the quality of Rd-1 high iso shots, but again prefered b&w to color. I should also say that color is/was the majority of what i shoot. If it is sunny to overcast, velvia 50 is great. But for general shooting, I am finding that just using slides is too costly and with the narrow exposure latitude, too difficult for fast shooting. The want for this low light 35mm camera is also due to high cost of shooting MF. Since I am not doing my own processing at this time, nor my own scanning, my cost per shot on MF is very high. About $2.19 per frame. That includes film, developing, and scanning. This forces me to be more thoughtful about every frame I shoot and how many times I shoot. By getting a fast 35mm which has much lower film/processing/scanning costs per frame, I am able to use it for shots where I would not bother using MF film. Plus, it would also enable me to use the camera in low light situations. This does not mean that I will only shoot at 1600 of course. I was using my light meter yesterday and calculated the lowest ev value that could be used at 1600, f1.4 at 1/15 of a second. I think the number was 7 on my luna pro meter. I then looked around the house to get that reading. It was very overcast outside, shutters closed. The 7 reading came from a table that was slightly illuminated by my monitor about 4 feet away. The majority of low light that I shoot is probably about 2 or more stops above this. At this point I am able to either shoot with a lower iso to improve overall image quality, get more DOF, or increase shutter speed to capture more action and or reduce possible shake. Giving manual controls to the camera makes it that much more appealing to me.

I love my Mamiya 7 & 7ii. For film in moderately low light I can use my Ikon / Nokton 50mm f1.5, but a modern DSLR and in the near future, cameras like the Leica X1 will be my choice for low light color photography. The right tool for the job.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the X1 seems like it will be a great camera. A bummer about the f2.8 restriction though.
 
Even with the f/2.8 the X1 should far outshine any film camera at low ISO. Check out the ISO 3200 samples out of the pre-production X1. What you miss is changing lenses and depth of field is rather substantial at f/2.8. In this respect, it is unfortunate that the lens wasn't faster, but then again it is small.
 
ven with the f/2.8 the X1 should far outshine any film camera at low ISO. Check out the ISO 3200 samples out of the pre-production X1. What you miss is changing lenses and depth of field is rather substantial at f/2.8. In this respect, it is unfortunate that the lens wasn't faster, but then again it is small.
Click to expand...

Where are these samples, I can't seem to find them?
 
The Hexar AF is something else, completly different, and great.
It is very hard to fool its measure/focus (unlike a g1 I tested) and its program is brilliant. Focuses down to .6m, mind you...
A one of a kind camera...

I would also recomend the canon 50mm f/1.4. Great CHEAP lens. one of the highest bang for the bucks ratios in my camera bag. very, very good, already wide open..

I would be carefull not to chose a short RF base camera, though (bessa, CL, CLE)
for 50 only, an M3? or if going the canon road, a P maybe?

Good luck
 
Take a look at some of the new Canon shots at ISO 3200 (same page). They make the X1 look like it is rather primitive.
 
I have an offer for a M4, late serial number (1273###), for $825. Camera is chrome and looks to be in very good condition. Should I go for it? I know it is a little higher in cost that what the M4P is going for, but it has a self timer which is a feature I like, plus it seems to have a better viewfinder compared to the M4p (or so my reading states). Should I go for it?
 
I have decided on the lens that I will buy....

...drum roll...

The Zeiss Sonnar C, 50mm f1.5!!!!!!!!!! I was browsing flickr and stumbled upon a set of photos taken with the lens, cameras used including M8.2, Oly EP1, and film. The images were breathtaking. I then started reading reviews and postings here and came to the same conclusion: I want that lens, regardless of cost and front focusing issues. Looks like I am going to have to go over my initial budget. Oh well, that just means having to wait a little longer. Meanwhile, I think I'll go shoot some more MF.
 
Pavel, congrats with the M4 !!!!
The C Sonnar is indeed great. I saw many examples of the pictures from this lens and was sold form the start.
The front focusing is not a big issues for me....
This lens is amazing when shot between f1.5 - f4
 
Oops! Instead of a suggestion, a little late, of course, I should have been giving you congrats. Enjoy your new gear. Great choices. Pardon my faux pax (I should have scrolled down farther. . . big oops). I owned an M4 for 27 years and loved it. I'm sure you will, too.
 
Today I found a little box in my delivery bin. Could it be? Yes!!! My M4 has arrived, and Oh!, what a beauty!!! Here is an image the seller sent me.

4069571541_0e929a4284_b.jpg


Now comes the wait to get a used Sonnar. If none appear in one month, I'll just get a silver one from Tony. Anybody want to sell me a 50mm LTM-M adaptor meanwhile?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom