DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Good points here. Indeed lots of good advice on low light photography in this thread. As always, as expected in RFF. Huzzah!!
Last edited:
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Barnack with 90/4, external VF and BW low grain iso 400 film @3200 in HB110.
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
I thought I’d jump into this conversation by sharing some great examples of my music concert photos. After a search in my archive of so-called great concert photos, I realized that most of my pictures sucked! How can this be?
It’s easy now to determine why: I was younger then when I stayed out late at night taking pictures of bands performing live. At that time of my life I was still photographing at the lowest ASA/ISO possible. The thought of shooting over ISO 400 was a foreign concept to me. Now I realize that indoor live performances need to be shot at much higher ISO to be in focus.
So, I propose a radical and unpopular suggestion… get a digital camera with a silent shutter, put a fast lens on said camera and shoot away at high ISO and get some great pictures!
Please feel free to ignore my silly suggestion.
All the best,
Mike
It’s easy now to determine why: I was younger then when I stayed out late at night taking pictures of bands performing live. At that time of my life I was still photographing at the lowest ASA/ISO possible. The thought of shooting over ISO 400 was a foreign concept to me. Now I realize that indoor live performances need to be shot at much higher ISO to be in focus.
So, I propose a radical and unpopular suggestion… get a digital camera with a silent shutter, put a fast lens on said camera and shoot away at high ISO and get some great pictures!
Please feel free to ignore my silly suggestion.
All the best,
Mike
Dralowid
Michael
In my days of taking pictures of bands it was Ilford HP3, 1/20th, f2, develop it for ages and hope for the best.
The results, some of which I still have somewhere, are best described as 'nostalgic'.
The digital approach seems appropriate.
The results, some of which I still have somewhere, are best described as 'nostalgic'.
The digital approach seems appropriate.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
My best band pictures where when the lead singer or guitarist was in the main spotlight and I got lucky. A fast lens, ISO400 color neg film & hope the walgreens machine was kind.
Digital? Heck yeah. Today I'd take my Pentax, my SMC F 50/1.4 & crank the ISO way up & be a whole lot more likely to get something useable and it's not anywhere near as noisy as the gunshots of old.
Digital? Heck yeah. Today I'd take my Pentax, my SMC F 50/1.4 & crank the ISO way up & be a whole lot more likely to get something useable and it's not anywhere near as noisy as the gunshots of old.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Agree -- as people on this forum seem to say frequently, "horses for courses," and at this point in the world's history I think a digital camera, with sophisticated metering, at a high ISO, is going to be a lot more useful than a rangefinder (and lens) at the limit of its abilities.
Bladt
Newbie
My reason is low noise. Digital silent shutter (electronic) only works without banding in electric light, when using a global shutter, such as the SONY A9III (7000 €) which is too expensive. Or I could use a Fuji X100, which only comes with a wide angle, hence a need for heavy cropping. Or I could use a Leica CL or a Contax G. Both 1000-3000€. A Fuji x100 is also appr. 1000-1500€. I guess my best option would be Contax G1 with 90mm lens (800€ in Copenhagen where I live) or an Agfa Ambi Silette with 90mm (200€) if I can find one in good working order. I just don't want noisy to stop me. The lst oprion wpuld be a BLIMP muffling, my usual digital cameras (Sony A6000 series). I wonder if there are other cameras like the Agfa Ambi Silette - same price range?
Mackinaw
Think Different
It works fine, meter and everything. The dim viewfinder makes it an outside camera only, but it's always fun to use a Pellix.If your Pellix is still working, you are in an elitist minority!!
Jim B.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Generally, I'd agree with this sentiment.
But the OP is asking specifically about rangefinders and mentioned the Agfa Ambi Silette, so I suspect the driving interest is not so much the results, but the process. And you can shoot concerts and theatre with film - people did for the best part of a century. I'm always amazed looking at books from the 1930s and seeing what was captured in very, very low light with the slow films of the day.
To a certain degree, we've been spoiled by sensors that can handle 25,000 ISO and IBIS that will make 1/8 hand-holdable. I can't speak for the OP, but there is a perverse pleasure in seeing if you can manage to get things done "the old way", with none of the modern tools and aids.
On a related note, for a while I was taking a Pentax KX to gigs (purely because it wasn't something I minded if it was bashed about a bit); nothing too fancy, just the KX, a SMC 50/1.7 and/or a 135/3.5. Delta 3200 will get the job done, but as @wlewisiii pointed out, you're very much at the mercy of the lighting rig. That's true even if you're going to shoot digital though: bad light is bad light, regardless of format.
Mogwai; 25th January, 2014. by Tony Gale, on Flickr
Cursive, The Rescue Rooms, Nottingham, 10th June 2012 by Tony Gale, on Flickr
The second one of Tim Kasher wasn't exactly the most well-lit, and I was pushing Ilford Surveillance P3 in Rodinal, of all things. Came out well, though. This is a dodgy old scan from a Canoscan; the wet print from the negative was much sharper than the Canoscan suggests.
Looking back through some of these old shots, I'm reminded of how hard metering a gig or show with dynamic lighting can be. TTL metering is a big help in scenarios like this. Theatre will be more consistent, but I'd still recommend an external spot meter.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
As I said before - lead me to it!! Buy them while they last. old German optics won't be around for much longer. The world (especially in Asia) is getting cleverer and savvier, and Weztlar ain't a small town in China...
Ebay prices everywhere are usually terrible. A perfect case of hope over common sense, on the sellers' part. Camera shop prices are almost always more sensible. The owners have rent and other overheads to cover and they want sales. And a reputable shop will offer a guarantee even on an old lens. My favorite dealer in Australia won't touch any item that even looks as if it will require maintenance/repair in the near future. Sadly, this seems to cover most older film gear nowadays, most of the buyers now having moved over to digital.
Respectfully, the Leica IIIs on offer (re an earlier post) are 1950s cameras. Guarantee or no guarantee, sooner or later, most likely the former, they will need an overhaul. Even a CLA on anything made by Leitz is not cheap. The Hector was the first 135 lens. The Elmar is newer. Not that the glass in the Hector is crazily inferior to the later Elmar, but it's possible the older lens won't be multicoated - I may be wrong on this and if so I stand corrected - in which case it may not be the best lens for low light photography.
Suffices to say there is still plenty of choice out there. In fact the OP will be spoiled for it when time comes for him to buy. And that's good.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I dunno.
The Leica M was the choice of professional photographers recording theater and quiet concert events for decades; it was also the choice of photojournalists in critical situations (like Presidential conferences in the White House) where being quiet and unobtrusive while the event was going on was essential.
I've used Leica Ms in similar situations quite successfully, never thought once about trying to find an even quieter camera. No one ever complained that my camera was making too much noise. That was years and years before digital cameras even existed other than in a laboratory.
A large part of unobtrusiveness isn't the noise level of the camera but the action of the photographer in taking photographs. An unobtrusive photographer operates the camera and his/her body with efficient intent and economy of movement, does not attract attention, and times the exposures such that whatever sound the camera makes is inconsequential to the surroundings. Given a photographer that understand unobtrusiveness, even a clattery old Nikon FM can be used in very quiet circumstances without being noticed or annoying...
So I would say to the OP: Consider more carefully the situation that you want to photograph in, pick up your camera ... any camera ... and practice being unobtrusive with it. Obviously, a quieter camera can be used even more successfully, but the real effort is in making your use of the camera as efficient, economical, and unobtrusive as possible in the first place.
To me, one of the great compliments I hoped for when I was doing environmental portrait assignments was having the subject turn to me after I'd made a half a dozen good photos and ask me, "Okay, I'm ready. When do we start?"
G
The Leica M was the choice of professional photographers recording theater and quiet concert events for decades; it was also the choice of photojournalists in critical situations (like Presidential conferences in the White House) where being quiet and unobtrusive while the event was going on was essential.
I've used Leica Ms in similar situations quite successfully, never thought once about trying to find an even quieter camera. No one ever complained that my camera was making too much noise. That was years and years before digital cameras even existed other than in a laboratory.
A large part of unobtrusiveness isn't the noise level of the camera but the action of the photographer in taking photographs. An unobtrusive photographer operates the camera and his/her body with efficient intent and economy of movement, does not attract attention, and times the exposures such that whatever sound the camera makes is inconsequential to the surroundings. Given a photographer that understand unobtrusiveness, even a clattery old Nikon FM can be used in very quiet circumstances without being noticed or annoying...
So I would say to the OP: Consider more carefully the situation that you want to photograph in, pick up your camera ... any camera ... and practice being unobtrusive with it. Obviously, a quieter camera can be used even more successfully, but the real effort is in making your use of the camera as efficient, economical, and unobtrusive as possible in the first place.
To me, one of the great compliments I hoped for when I was doing environmental portrait assignments was having the subject turn to me after I'd made a half a dozen good photos and ask me, "Okay, I'm ready. When do we start?"
G
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I know it hasn't been that long but - Heavens to Murgatroyd! I hope we didn't scare-off the OP and he pulled a Snagglepuss! - "Exit, stage left!"
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I think the biggest benefit of the III is that it is a 1930s to 1950s camera. The shutter on my IIIg was about another year from turning to dust, it was so dried-up, cracked, and riddled with holes. I had a guy make a brand new shutter for it, and now it's perfect. It's much harder to do that with later cameras that are all plastic and silicon. Yes, that cost me another £200 or so, but it was worth it - that camera's going to outlive me now.
135mm lenses: the one I linked to was totally uncoated. Early chrome Hektors are single coated, I believe. They're honestly not bad for low-light use - if you can stabilise them; the biggest issue will be glow around light sources, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, it's a look, at least. Just make sure you have a hood - and the right one at that.
The biggest issue on all those lenses from the 30s to the 50s is haze. At least the Leitz haze is removable; Canon haze can etch the glass. I've cleaned up a bunch of early Leitz lenses, and it makes a huge difference.
Cascadilla
Well-known
When I was shooting theatre on film I found that there was often a surprising amount of lighting variation from scene to scene and sometimes from moment to moment. Even though I used a 1 degree spot meter a lot for other things I found that I simply didn't have time to take a spot reading and transfer settings to my cameras in time to get fleeting expressions or particular moments that the director had specifically requested that I get. The TTL metering of my Pentax LX bodies (4 of them since I was shooting both B&W and color slides) was helpful and long experience with these cameras told me when to follow its recommendations or ignore them in the case of wide shots with bright lighting on actors with dim lighting on the background.Generally, I'd agree with this sentiment.
But the OP is asking specifically about rangefinders and mentioned the Agfa Ambi Silette, so I suspect the driving interest is not so much the results, but the process. And you can shoot concerts and theatre with film - people did for the best part of a century. I'm always amazed looking at books from the 1930s and seeing what was captured in very, very low light with the slow films of the day.
To a certain degree, we've been spoiled by sensors that can handle 25,000 ISO and IBIS that will make 1/8 hand-holdable. I can't speak for the OP, but there is a perverse pleasure in seeing if you can manage to get things done "the old way", with none of the modern tools and aids.
On a related note, for a while I was taking a Pentax KX to gigs (purely because it wasn't something I minded if it was bashed about a bit); nothing too fancy, just the KX, a SMC 50/1.7 and/or a 135/3.5. Delta 3200 will get the job done, but as @wlewisiii pointed out, you're very much at the mercy of the lighting rig. That's true even if you're going to shoot digital though: bad light is bad light, regardless of format.
Mogwai; 25th January, 2014. by Tony Gale, on Flickr
Cursive, The Rescue Rooms, Nottingham, 10th June 2012 by Tony Gale, on Flickr
The second one of Tim Kasher wasn't exactly the most well-lit, and I was pushing Ilford Surveillance P3 in Rodinal, of all things. Came out well, though. This is a dodgy old scan from a Canoscan; the wet print from the negative was much sharper than the Canoscan suggests.
Looking back through some of these old shots, I'm reminded of how hard metering a gig or show with dynamic lighting can be. TTL metering is a big help in scenarios like this. Theatre will be more consistent, but I'd still recommend an external spot meter.
Cascadilla
Well-known
If you're working on film the 90 mm for that Ambi Silette is only f/4, and that will be a severe limitation in practical terms. The little research I just did on this camera indicates a short base rangefinder which will affect focusing accuracy on that lens as well, especially under low light. When I did this work on film professionally I had 35 mm f/2, 50 mm f/1.4, 85 mm f/1.8, 135 f/2.5 and 200 f/2.5 lenses plus a 28 mm f/2.8. These lenses were often used wide open so as to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze action. When I switched to digital, I went to f/2.8 zooms which was possible because of the higher ISOs that I could use and still maintain decent quality. How loud is your current Sony with a regular shutter? There is no moving mirror as in an SLR so it shouldn't be too bad and that would finesse the rolling shutter issue. The other thing about shooting film is frequent reloading. With one film camera you'll be doing that a lot. A large capacity SD card and fresh batteries will keep you going through an entire performance, especially if you can get a battery/vertical grip for your camera that would had an extra battery and give you a convenient way to hold the camera for vertical shots.
MrFujicaman
Well-known
Try a Kiev 4-the shutter makes just a dull "thunk".
Sanug
Established
Although I love my Canon 7s and know the beautiful Canon P, forget them all if you need a really silent shutter. They have metal curtains and both are really not silent. However, it depends very much of the surrounding noise weather the shutter sound will be found to be annoying or not. I shot some rolls at a circus with my Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SPII without getting into trouble, although the mirror was not silent at all.
I had a very silent film camera but was not happy with it. I am talking about the first model of the Konica Hexar. But I don't like autofocus. And it is damn expensive and maybe not repairable if the electronic fails.
Shooting film in such available light conditions is a challenge today. High ISO films like Fuji Neopan 1600 or Fujicolor 1600 has been discontinued. Maybe it would be a good idea to go digital instead of shooting film. Or stay with black and white, HP5 is still available and can be pushed.
I had a very silent film camera but was not happy with it. I am talking about the first model of the Konica Hexar. But I don't like autofocus. And it is damn expensive and maybe not repairable if the electronic fails.
Shooting film in such available light conditions is a challenge today. High ISO films like Fuji Neopan 1600 or Fujicolor 1600 has been discontinued. Maybe it would be a good idea to go digital instead of shooting film. Or stay with black and white, HP5 is still available and can be pushed.
santino
FSU gear head
That is true for 1/125 and faster. The slower speeds (including sync speed) can be quite noisier.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
A decade ago you would have received at least a couple recommendations for a Konica Hexar AF, with stealth mode enabled.
It's super silent, ideal for the theater. Yes, I know, it has a fixed 35/2 lens. I sold mine years ago.
I am a staunch "film first" advocate, but given your requirements today something digital probably offers the best options.
Chris
It's super silent, ideal for the theater. Yes, I know, it has a fixed 35/2 lens. I sold mine years ago.
I am a staunch "film first" advocate, but given your requirements today something digital probably offers the best options.
Chris