Any worthy substitute for M7 + Noctilux?

[Tim N Calif]

Question: Are there any good substitutes for M7 + Noticilux for use in low light settings? I'm considering an AE M-mount body for night scenes, dance halls, etc. where AE metering would be welcome; but am not yet ready to shell out the required $$$ for M7 + fast Leica lens. A logical choice seems the Hexar RF, with a fast lens 50mm. However, has anyone experienced focusing problems with a fast 50mm on the Hexar RF, as reported on CameraQuest:

Curiously, the Hexar's image magnification is lower at .6 (same as the Leica CL) instead of Leica's .72 or .85, resulting in an effective rangefinder baselength of 69.2 x .6 = 41.5 which is 83% as accurate (all other factors being equal) as the .72 M6. In practical terms this means the Hexar will be easier to use with the 28 and 35 for eye glasses wearers, but won't give the focusing accuracy needed for the 50/1.4 or faster, 75/1.4, 90/2, or 135/4 wide-open at the closest focusing distance. (http://cameraquest.com/konicam.htm; underscore added.)​

Any suggestions for a relative newbie would be appreciated. For that matter, any ideas for a combo that would do well in low light settings with moving subjects, that won't break the bank, would be appreciated. I do have an M3 w/ 50mm summicron, but the photos so far haven't been very satisfying in the described low light settings.

TSF

 

[rogue_designer]

What about an Ikon with a fast 50? Depending on budget there are several options out there from 1.4 and up.

Edit. You already have the M3. Just get a faster lens and a better meter. I find, generally speaking, in very low light, you're only typically dealing with one or two meter settings. Get them both ahead of time, then swap by eye. (ie. streets in Chicago at night are typically f1.4 @ 1/30th for well lit streets... and 1.2 @ 1/15th for not so well lit streets... with 400 speed film) I don't need to chase the meter to get those...

 

[WoolenMammoth]

if you go with a hexar, I would figure out a magnifier for the viewfinder, focusing a 1.4 is doable but not pleasant. I use mine for wides.

 

[Beemermark]

Minolta CLE & 40 Nokton. I own two M7's and a number of 50mm lenses including a 50 Summilux. The CLE is the closest thing going to the M7. I owned a Konica Hexar and used it to death but the viewfinder presents lot's of problems.

 

[splitimageview]

As mentioned above, you already have an M3. That's a great camera for focusing a fast lens.

If you must have AE, Zeiss Ikon. And perhaps a 50/1.2 Canon.

 

[thomasw_]

Hi there,

I have used a M3 with a Summilux 50/1,4 ASPH for the light you describe. I don't think you need a different body unless you want to shoot a 35 in that light; the M3 is just lame with a 35, especially with goggles. Over Christmas I picked up a .85x MP and I find it is perfect for shooting in low light with my 35/50/75 Summiluxes. The 35 summilux seems faster than 1,4 and the tight framing in the .85x really suits me, as I have shot my 35s with a M2 over last few years and it is a lot like that.

I think another great option for low light 35s is the Nokton f1,2. It is truly a beastly big Momma of a lens, but without its hood I find it works well and it does not impede my VF too badly; with the hood it is unacceptable imo. It is imperative to have a really bright finder to work in low light. The M3/MP or ZI finders are the best for low light. If you get any other M, I would look at having a MP finder installed in it if low light shooting is your game. The ZI has a very bright VF, but you should be aware that I had trouble focussing mine and that I had a few alignment problems. If you do a search on the ZI you will see that I am not alone.

 

[35mmdelux]

Ive seen some nice work here lately with the 35mm/1.2. AE isnt all that good in low light because you generally have to open the lens a few stops beyond what AE calls for to capture some detail.

 

[Al Kaplan]

In any situation where you're likely to have light sources within the picture area auto exposure is just asking for trouble. Make a few incident readings around the area and put the meter away. There will always be situations where you'll get some motion blur from a too slow shutter speed. Getting a faster lens often means trading in the motion blur for more out of focus areas in the photo. Or you'll be tempted to shoot in still less light and be back to square one again.

 

[feenej]

A Bessa R and a 35mm f2.5. It was dark in this bar two nights ago when I took this. I didn't take a meter reading. f4, 1/30 sec, TriX, 1 1/2 hours in Rodinal, 1 to 100. Any camera you happen to own.

 

[maddoc]

I second Al's comment. My shooting is 90 % under low-light and AE doesn't help you at all. Especially in bars, at events like life-concerts you have to many point light sources mixed with huge very dark areas in the frame, which irritates the AE.

I have used the Hexar RF together with a Noctilux for a short time, focus is not a problem but needs practice. (Many depends on your eye-sight, BTW). Shooting in low-light situatons (as described above), the light isn't easy to meter for an AE camera but usually constant. The AE mode of the Hexar RF was no help at all and I used it mainly in manual mode. You can meter the dark and bright areas before shooting, remember the settings (they won't differ more than three stops from my experience) and take your M3 with a fast Hexanon 50/1.2 or Noctilux. The M3 (with a cleaned VF !) is the best choice for 50mm in dark environment.

Cheers,

Gabor

 

[Tim N Calif]

Interesting suggestions . . .

Interesting suggestions . . .

Hmmm . . . much food for thought. Thanks for the responses.

My existing M3: I'll reconsider my existing M3 and look for a 50mm 'lux. (There was an early version listed here for about $900, seems reasonable, but thought I'd be getting alot of bohek at wide f stops; but suppose that will be an issue with any fast lens.) Maybe that and some fast film. However, when I'm in the dance clubs in dim light with the M3, I find metering to be a real challenge. Maybe just more practice, and experimenting. Perhaps an MP would get the job done more efficiently.

As for the CLE, something I didn't look at, but why not, except the difficulty in finding parts and service? I haven't tried a 40mm, altho I imagine it's close in imaging to a 35mm (which I have in a 'cron v 4). I'll have to consider this, but the framelines are pretty much set up for the 40mm only?

Initially, I thought the Hexar with a fast Hexanon would do the trick with added bonus of a quiet auto advance, but then I saw the comment on the viewfinder + focusing issue with the faster lenses. So, further research and consideration here . . .

Thanks again.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

What about the Zeiss Sonnar f/1.5?

 

[Tim N Calif]

Merits of AE in dim light . . .

Merits of AE in dim light . . .

Al and Gabor: I appreciate receiving your thoughts and experience on the AE in low light, and especially the Hexar. Suppose its better to read the light with your eye and a meter rather than rely upon the AE function, especially in dim settings . . .

 

[Tim N Calif]

Zeiss Sonar

Zeiss Sonar

I recall reading a comment of Tom A's that the Zeiss Sonar 50 was his favorite fast 50. Going price for one of these?

 

[Al Kaplan]

Tim, after awhile you start to realize that auto exposure works great for average subjects in relatively flat light. Then one by one you'll learn the "work-arounds" to get your auto exposure camera to give you something close to correct exposure in contrasty light, scenes that include light sources, scenes where there are a lot of very dark areas or very light areas. You reach a point where you realize that auto-exposure often creates more problems than it solves. A decent light meter and a manual camera is a very versatile combination. It's something that you can work WITH, rather than trying to figure out the best way to fool the automation.

 

[maddoc]

Tim, about rangefinder accuracy of the Hexar RF (when used with a Noctilux): This one was taken in close-focus range with the Hexar RF and @ f/1.0:

About 50mm lenses for low-light ... I recently picked up a Canon 50mm f/1.4 in LTM mount for < $200. From the results so far a very decent performing lens wide open (despite it's age), not that heavy and maybe a good starting point to go with your M3 ?

Cheers,

Gabor

 

[amateriat]

I don't entirely get the animosity toward the Hexar's VF in low light:

Perhaps the difference between f/2 and f/1.4 is sizable, but I haven't had issues working my M-Hex 50 f/2 wide-open.


- Barrett

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I don't entirely get the animosity toward the Hexar's VF in low light:

the finder is awesome, super bright. Its the ebl which is the issue for focusing faster lenses. is there a magnifier available for these? would solve all kinds of problems...

 

[aizan]

it doesn't take much to focus a 50/1, which is nearly half as demanding as a 75/1.4 or 90/2.

 

[Krosya]

I used this combo :

to take these pics all at 1.2:

Seems to work for me. Maybe takes some practice though.