amateriat
We're all light!
Krosya: 'nuff said. Beautiful images.
- Barrett
- Barrett
The Hexar RF Limited was sold in-kit with a 50mm f/1.2 so I expect the rangefinder focusing is suitable for that fast lens.
But I'll agree with the suggestions to use the fine M3 you have, and work on metering technique and reading the light. One thing someone else alluded to also is the need for a bit more exposure in dim redish interior illumination, because the b&w film tends to be less red-sensitive than the meter, resulting in a slightly optimistic reading, and underexposure.
But I'll agree with the suggestions to use the fine M3 you have, and work on metering technique and reading the light. One thing someone else alluded to also is the need for a bit more exposure in dim redish interior illumination, because the b&w film tends to be less red-sensitive than the meter, resulting in a slightly optimistic reading, and underexposure.
Tim N Calif
Island Boy
Great Replies - lots of options
Great Replies - lots of options
Gabor, Barrett & Krosya: Thanks for the fine low-light examples - very pleasing. I'm of course curious: Did you do these with AE or manual?
Krosya: What kind of lens is that on the Hexar - a 40 or 50mm asph? (I can't quite make it out in the picture - I do see the 1.2 designation, and assume it the "big momma" 35 suggested by Thomas?)
Barrett: Your 50 f2 opened wide seems to do very well, so maybe I can just stick with the 50 'cron + M3 and make it work.
Mammoth referred to "ebl" as the issue for focusing fast lenses on the Hexar - what is ebl ?
My summary:
1) Despite the cameraquest critique, the reported focusing problem with fast 50s on the Hex RF is perhaps overstated ? (the images posted in replies looked sharp). However, Mammoth's comment on the VF problem duly noted;
2) The M3 with a fast lens and manual metering may do fine (i.e., find a bargain Hexanon 1.2, summilux 1.4, Zeiss 1.5 or a LTM Canon 1.4 to mate with the M3);
3) Don't rely heavily upon AE metering in low lighting;
4) Pick up a Hexar RF (or maybe Ikon) anyway, slap on a lens and shoot in low light for practice and fun.
Lastly, I'll keep in mind Doug's remark about the limited edition Hex RF kit with the F1.2 (chance favors the prepared mind?); plus slightly overexposing B&W when manual metering.
Its been a pleasure and education reading your replies !
Great Replies - lots of options
Gabor, Barrett & Krosya: Thanks for the fine low-light examples - very pleasing. I'm of course curious: Did you do these with AE or manual?
Krosya: What kind of lens is that on the Hexar - a 40 or 50mm asph? (I can't quite make it out in the picture - I do see the 1.2 designation, and assume it the "big momma" 35 suggested by Thomas?)
Barrett: Your 50 f2 opened wide seems to do very well, so maybe I can just stick with the 50 'cron + M3 and make it work.
Mammoth referred to "ebl" as the issue for focusing fast lenses on the Hexar - what is ebl ?
My summary:
1) Despite the cameraquest critique, the reported focusing problem with fast 50s on the Hex RF is perhaps overstated ? (the images posted in replies looked sharp). However, Mammoth's comment on the VF problem duly noted;
2) The M3 with a fast lens and manual metering may do fine (i.e., find a bargain Hexanon 1.2, summilux 1.4, Zeiss 1.5 or a LTM Canon 1.4 to mate with the M3);
3) Don't rely heavily upon AE metering in low lighting;
4) Pick up a Hexar RF (or maybe Ikon) anyway, slap on a lens and shoot in low light for practice and fun.
Lastly, I'll keep in mind Doug's remark about the limited edition Hex RF kit with the F1.2 (chance favors the prepared mind?); plus slightly overexposing B&W when manual metering.
Its been a pleasure and education reading your replies !
Krosya
Konicaze
Debusti Paolo
Well-known
Another vote for nokton 35/1.2
deepwhite
Well-known
Nokton 35/1.2 + Bessa R2A. This setup should cost you less than USD$1400, but will deliver amazing result.
(I own this setup, and also the M7 + Noctilux. And I'm not selling the Nokton 35/1.2.)
(I own this setup, and also the M7 + Noctilux. And I'm not selling the Nokton 35/1.2.)
historicist
Well-known
I'm going to go out on a limb and recommend the Hexar AF. Should cost you 500 Dollars at most, and the autofocus is fast, silent, accurate, and works even in complete darkness.
With any kind of moving subject, it is far easier than using a rf, irrespective of how good bright the patch is or how long the baselength is. By the time you've manually focussed on someone who's had a drink or two, quite often they're not there anymore...
The lens is also excellent, a 35mm F2 more or less equal to a Summicron, and it has ae and metered manual (though I agree that manual mode is the way to go with situation where there are brights lights in an otherwise dark space).
I do quite a lot of shooting in low light and it's surprising how little use very fast lenses are - it may well be that with a Noctilux you can shoot in much darker places than with a Summicron but if that means 1/8th a second and people are moving around then you are just exchanging camera shake blur for motion blur.
There are good reasons for having a fast lens, but for me at least they are more to do with preferring the look of low dof pictures, or for more slow and deliberate night shooting, still life and the like - but if you want a fast lens to get you that shot in a bar or club it doesn't help that much.
Reliable AF and fast film are much more useful in that kind of situation. Focal length choice is also a matter of taste, but you can hand hold a 35mm f2 as slow as you can a 50mm f1.4, and 35mm is well suited to indoor shooting, so the lens on the Hexar AF is appropriate for your kind of shooting.
With any kind of moving subject, it is far easier than using a rf, irrespective of how good bright the patch is or how long the baselength is. By the time you've manually focussed on someone who's had a drink or two, quite often they're not there anymore...
The lens is also excellent, a 35mm F2 more or less equal to a Summicron, and it has ae and metered manual (though I agree that manual mode is the way to go with situation where there are brights lights in an otherwise dark space).
I do quite a lot of shooting in low light and it's surprising how little use very fast lenses are - it may well be that with a Noctilux you can shoot in much darker places than with a Summicron but if that means 1/8th a second and people are moving around then you are just exchanging camera shake blur for motion blur.
There are good reasons for having a fast lens, but for me at least they are more to do with preferring the look of low dof pictures, or for more slow and deliberate night shooting, still life and the like - but if you want a fast lens to get you that shot in a bar or club it doesn't help that much.
Reliable AF and fast film are much more useful in that kind of situation. Focal length choice is also a matter of taste, but you can hand hold a 35mm f2 as slow as you can a 50mm f1.4, and 35mm is well suited to indoor shooting, so the lens on the Hexar AF is appropriate for your kind of shooting.
maddoc
... likes film again.
^^ Some very good points ! Fast film is for sure the way to go in low light especially to prevent from motion blur but ... 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 50/1.0 still have some "reserve" (that is at least one stop) over 35/2.0 and 50/2.0.
From my experience (I also shoot most of my photos at night), 400ISO and 50/2.0 is still very usable in the streets, when there are many lights but inside dark bars, restaurants etc 800ISO or better 1600ISO is a must when using 50/2.0. That is no problem when using BW film (and less when self-developing) but there are not so many color-films, that can be pushed well two stops.
... of course my two cents only !
From my experience (I also shoot most of my photos at night), 400ISO and 50/2.0 is still very usable in the streets, when there are many lights but inside dark bars, restaurants etc 800ISO or better 1600ISO is a must when using 50/2.0. That is no problem when using BW film (and less when self-developing) but there are not so many color-films, that can be pushed well two stops.
... of course my two cents only !
historicist
Well-known
^^ True, faster lenses always give a handy reserve. I don't use a lot of black and white myself, but Provia 400X pushes to 800 and 1600 very well, the colours are still good and the grain is surprisingly minimal.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Why do you want AE for low light settings? You are much better off taking a hand held reading , unless you really know how to use the built in meter. Otherwise it will constantly try to turn the darkness of your club, in to a nice 18% gray.
Personally I would recommend an M4 with the Noct and spotmeter. The 50mm framelines on the M4 are a lot more accurate than those in the M6/M6ttl/M7 and MP.
awilder
Alan Wilder
I use a Hexar RF Limited with the 50/1.2 Hexanon and have no rf accuracy problems wide open, even close up. Since the camera has a top speed of 1/4000, it lets you exploit to a maximum a fast 50 for minimal DOF in most daylight situations. Here's a link with some sample shots I took with the lens: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59349
hannexx
Member
I use a CLE and Nokton 40/1.4. The combo should cost you well under $1000. I have no qualms with the AE of the CLE (from subjective experience, I get better exposures than my Bessas).
It really is a small package, and it works out well for low light work. The EBL seems accurate enough for f1.4.
Here are two example pictures with this combo, taken at jazz bars in New York. Probably shot wide open with AE.
http://ppodd.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/funk-out/
http://ppodd.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/garage-trio/
It really is a small package, and it works out well for low light work. The EBL seems accurate enough for f1.4.
Here are two example pictures with this combo, taken at jazz bars in New York. Probably shot wide open with AE.
http://ppodd.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/funk-out/
http://ppodd.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/garage-trio/
Last edited:
aniMal
Well-known
Consider one thing - how far can you pull it when it comes to exposure? I used to do some low light photography with an M2 and a 35 summicron, and on good days 1/4s was possible. 1/8 was always sharp for me in 2 out of 3 exposures - and occasionally 1/2s was possible with some support.
Also, panning is part of the picture - with lots of exercise it is possible to follow a lot more than you might think is possible...
I would agree with others here that the M3 is a perfect camera for conditions like these. I even used to carry a light meter some nights out when I didn´t actually bring the camera - just to get used to assessing light levels.
If you really want AE, I think an R2A with a 35 1.2 should be perfect. Perhaps you could keep the M3 with the 50, this would give you a really good kit!
Another option is to get into fine grain processing, and tweak out half a stop that way...
I used to have a Hexar AF - and totally agree that it is an amazing camera. I will definitely pounce on it the next time I see one for sale!
Anyway, good luck with your project - it is so rewarding to really get into a particular style of shooting, especially when it is to the degree that you start looking for the right tool to do it - not the other way around!
Also, panning is part of the picture - with lots of exercise it is possible to follow a lot more than you might think is possible...
I would agree with others here that the M3 is a perfect camera for conditions like these. I even used to carry a light meter some nights out when I didn´t actually bring the camera - just to get used to assessing light levels.
If you really want AE, I think an R2A with a 35 1.2 should be perfect. Perhaps you could keep the M3 with the 50, this would give you a really good kit!
Another option is to get into fine grain processing, and tweak out half a stop that way...
I used to have a Hexar AF - and totally agree that it is an amazing camera. I will definitely pounce on it the next time I see one for sale!
Anyway, good luck with your project - it is so rewarding to really get into a particular style of shooting, especially when it is to the degree that you start looking for the right tool to do it - not the other way around!
hiromu
Established
goldchen96
Member
I'll second that. I love fast lenses and use them almost exclusively, but usually more for the look/rendering of OOF-areas rather than their low light ability.
Sure, faster speeds come in handy, but I have seen some really good pictures from "dark" settings in this forum with 1,4/1,5/2,0 lenses...
kevin m
Veteran
I know that math says they're the "same," but I think the Hexar RF, with it's low-mag finder but long BL, focuses fast lenses better than do the Bessas with their high-mag finders but short BL. In any case, I never had any trouble focusing a Summilux 50 wide-open, close focus with the Hexar RF.
I will agree with you on the base-length, Kevin. The long baseline is easier because the secondary (patch) image moves more in relation to the main image. This is because the longer baseline means more angular change for the pivoting mirror/prism. This really makes focusing faster and more precise.
The higher magnification finders magnify both the patch and the background image so you can see them better, and this does help focusing... but this doesn't substitute for a long baseline -- a short baseline still means the patch image (even magnified) doesn't move as far in proportion to its twin in the main image for a given focus change.
Kinda hard to explain in words... what really demonstrated this to me was comparing a Kiev 4a with its huge baseline, a Bessa T with short-base high-mag RF, Minolta CLE, and an M2... The benefits of the long baseline were immediately evident!
The higher magnification finders magnify both the patch and the background image so you can see them better, and this does help focusing... but this doesn't substitute for a long baseline -- a short baseline still means the patch image (even magnified) doesn't move as far in proportion to its twin in the main image for a given focus change.
Kinda hard to explain in words... what really demonstrated this to me was comparing a Kiev 4a with its huge baseline, a Bessa T with short-base high-mag RF, Minolta CLE, and an M2... The benefits of the long baseline were immediately evident!
notturtle
Well-known
if you are going to shoot 50 or longer:
R3A, M3, or m6 0.85. The last two will be OK for a 35 too.
Ikon would be decent too... but not as good as a higher mag body for the 50.
I would use a 50 1.4/5. The 50 Nocton is a good price and good performer by all accounts. I am not a fan of the super fast lenses due to the difficulty focusing on anything that might move a smidge. even 50 1.4 gives shallow DOF. I would instead set about using a fast film that gives the results you like. 50/60 1.2 Hexar might be worth a look.
R3A, M3, or m6 0.85. The last two will be OK for a 35 too.
Ikon would be decent too... but not as good as a higher mag body for the 50.
I would use a 50 1.4/5. The 50 Nocton is a good price and good performer by all accounts. I am not a fan of the super fast lenses due to the difficulty focusing on anything that might move a smidge. even 50 1.4 gives shallow DOF. I would instead set about using a fast film that gives the results you like. 50/60 1.2 Hexar might be worth a look.
Assaf
Well-known
If you want an RF with AE and good rangefinder, I'd recommend the Zeiss Ikon.
If you really need to shoot in low light using the Noctilux will give you a very shallow depth of field, difficulty in focusing on moving objects and a total bizarre look.
Actually, I saw very few pictures taken with the Noctilux in actual low light. Most of them were just taken wide open, to have the "Nocti - look".
In other words, if you don't have enough light take a faster film. ISO 800 in both BW and colors (Fuji Superia) are fairly good (and even 1600, but with some more grain and constrast). The pictures will have "high ISO character" but with the Nocti, a great part of the picture will be out of focus.
Most people that actually shoot in low light for a living, use flashes or DSLRs that perform well in high ISOs.
If you really need to shoot in low light using the Noctilux will give you a very shallow depth of field, difficulty in focusing on moving objects and a total bizarre look.
Actually, I saw very few pictures taken with the Noctilux in actual low light. Most of them were just taken wide open, to have the "Nocti - look".
In other words, if you don't have enough light take a faster film. ISO 800 in both BW and colors (Fuji Superia) are fairly good (and even 1600, but with some more grain and constrast). The pictures will have "high ISO character" but with the Nocti, a great part of the picture will be out of focus.
Most people that actually shoot in low light for a living, use flashes or DSLRs that perform well in high ISOs.
Last edited:
mfogiel
Veteran
You should go this route:
1) Zeiss Ikon - this gives you the biggest and brightest vf plus AE
2) Nokton 35/1.2 - this gives you the fastest 35mm lens with the advantage (over the 50mm) of a bigger DOF
3) Tri-X in Diafne set at EI 800 - this gives you the true fast film with a 5 stop tollerance (it will work in the EI range 100-1600 ISO) and will cover all the AE imperfections in difficult lighting
Here you have an example: ZI+35/1.2 Nokton wide open, AE, Tri-X in Diafine @EI 800
1) Zeiss Ikon - this gives you the biggest and brightest vf plus AE
2) Nokton 35/1.2 - this gives you the fastest 35mm lens with the advantage (over the 50mm) of a bigger DOF
3) Tri-X in Diafne set at EI 800 - this gives you the true fast film with a 5 stop tollerance (it will work in the EI range 100-1600 ISO) and will cover all the AE imperfections in difficult lighting
Here you have an example: ZI+35/1.2 Nokton wide open, AE, Tri-X in Diafine @EI 800
Last edited: